Overly enthusiastic endorsements

Botched Desktop Effort or Mildly Deceptive Political Advertising?

By Marjorie Smith, 11-03-06

Every election season I try to figure out what I think about yard signs. Ugly clutter or vivid evidence of democratic (small d) fervor in an apathetic nation? Whenever someone I know, whose politics I’m in agreement with, asks I say, “Sure. Put your sign up.” I live on a fairly busy corner – I guess there’s some value to it. Then I watch with interest as some of the signs disappear. Random vandalism? Or someone making a (very stupid) political comment?

This is the first year I’ve thought much about those “We endorse so-and-so” ads that run in the daily paper with long lists of people who presumably feel strongly enough about a certain race to put their names and their dollars down to pay for the ad. But this year I stumbled upon an ad that raises some questions: How honest and sincere are these efforts to garner votes? Are they just one more mildly dishonest attempt to influence prospective voters?

The ad in question was in support of a candidate seeking re-election as district judge. Because this is a non-partisan position, I figured the list of names might be helpful. Truth be told, I already had a sign in my yard supporting Holly Brown’s opponent. A local politico whom I deeply respect had told me she favored Dan Roth and so I gave him permission to put the sign up. But I was still curious – and hadn’t voted yet – and so I began reading the list of names supporting Judge Brown. In the second column (of four) I came across something curious – names began to repeat themselves.

Wait a minute, I thought. Didn’t I read that name already? I looked back. Sure enough, a block of 40 or so names had been repeated, in exactly the same order -- and not alphabetically, I noted. If the names had been arranged alphabetically, duplications would have been obvious to the most casual peruser of the ad.

Hmm. Well, I’ve done a lot of desktop publishing in my time, and these things happen. Probably just a computer glitch of some kind. But I continued reading the names carefully. And darned if after another 30 names or so I didn’t come across another group of 44 names that were immediately repeated. Okay, I counted. By this time my inately suspicious nature had been aroused.

A second desktop computer glitch? Or … an attempt to overwhelm the opposition with battalions of supporters? Or just a last minute effort to fill up the ad space that had already been purchased?

In the end, an ad that purports to show 274 supporters only lists 164 individual names. Not a big deal if we compare it to some political chicanery going on in our nation’s capital. But even so, a deceptive ad, whatever its provenance.

The moral of the story is, I guess, don’t take anything on face value. Just because there are more signs on your street shouting “Burns” than there are for Tester, may only mean that no one has run around pulling down Burns signs recently. And just because a very long list of people appear to have endorsed one candidate over another, the actual roster of individuals might be somewhat shorter.

For me, my course is clear. On Tuesday I’ll vote for Dan Roth, the polite and respectful man who showed up on my doorstep and introduced himself as candidate for district judge. I think it’s important for a judge (and her staff) to be careful about details.

Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.