A new television ad campaign launched Monday by the RNC accuses President Obama’s push to overhaul the nation’s healthcare system as a “risky experiment.”

This ad is sending a strategic message with word choice. Bold words like “bailouts,” takeovers,” and “spending spree” emphasize what this administration has already delivered. Describing the proposed health care reform as a “risky experiment” purposefully concerns viewers. Experiment implies a trial of something new to determine whether or not it works. Experimenting with a policy that will affect 267 million Americans and cost trillions of dollars is dangerous. No one wants their health care to be put in jeopardy by a reckless reform that took just months to put together but will be affecting us for decades to come.

The ad is being broadcast in Arkansas, Nevada, and North Dakota; the video is also available at BarackObamaExperiment.com

The RNC runs the website designed to raise opposition to Obama’s health care reform. The site allows visitors to share the link through social networking sites, it provides phone numbers to radio political talk shows, it provides sample letters to send to newspapers, and it encourages people to contact their elected officials, even providing talking points on the opposition.

It’s beginning to be an all-out campaign against Obama’s government-run health insurance plan. And separating this campaign from the RNC’s website makes the issues less about partisan politics and more about the issue at hand. As the health care debate heats up, we can anticipate seeing a lot more ads like this.

Today, YouTube added a new feature to the advertising portion of their website. The addition of “Call-To-Action-Overlay” allows subscribers the ability to have a translucent pop-up ad appear at the bottom of the video linking to a third-party website.

The only catch: subscribers have to enter their video into YouTube’s Promoted Videos program. The new feature is free, per se, but subscribers are required to pay the advertising fee.

Before, sponsors had to include the website in the description of the video inconveniently off screen. As a result, many ignored these links and, thus, they were ineffective in driving significant traffic to the sponsors website.

Now, the options are endless for politicians, singers, musicians, video bloggers, interest groups, etc to dramatically increase flow to their website. The group “charity: water” was one of YouTube’s first beta tests for the project. They were able to raise $10,000 in one day for their cause of bringing clean water to developing countries. 

TechCrunch’s Jason Kincaid puts it best,

Brands can link their commercials back to the products they’re selling. Publishers (like us) can link back to relevant articles. And politicians can link back to their campaign homepages or petitions. But there’s almost certainly some other kind of creative use for the new ads waiting to be tapped, just as YouTube’s annotations were used to create choose-your-own-adventure video journeys.

With YouTube making a significant mark on the 2008 election cycle, the options are endless for politicians, interest groups, and parties wanting to create avenues to their websites. Ad overlays capture the emotion felt from a video, streamline the connection between parties, and translate into dollars, advocacy, or support. A few politicians are already doing this. Senator Patrick Leahy is using an ad overlay in a video calling for investigations into the Bush administration linked to a website with a petition. Taking down this barrier has cracked the political advertising floodgates. Put your rain coat on.  

The big political battle of the summer is turning out to be on healthcare. Some interest groups have begun churning out material in support of their respective positions with video advertising. Conservatives for Patient Rights has been airing national ads in an attempt to define the debate. One of its first ads “The Four Pillars of Healthcare Reform” hones a clear and concise message with effective buzzwords like “choice” and “personal responsibility.”

CPR has also run a variety of ads with personal testimonials of patients negatively affected by government healthcare. Its most recent ad “Bulldozer” uses the metaphor of a bulldozer as the destroyer of personal choice.

Many universal healthcare advocates have reacted to their ad buys with online responses. For example, The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) responded with a witty 1:32 web video creatively mocking right wing attacks on health care.

Americans United for Change recently delivered a TV ad before President Obama’s speech for the American Medical Association entitled “62%.” Like the previous CPR ad, it is light, simple, and straightforward. Its effectiveness is manifest in the use of President Obama’s election support for healthcare reform.

These are just a few examples and will not likely be the last as the summer battle over healthcare reform heats up.

The RNC recently released a web video attacking Obama’s Government-Run Health Care Plan.
 

 
The video exposes the pitfalls of goverment-run health care. The ad hits on three major issues people are concerned with: Americans losing their rights to choose a doctor, medical procedures taking much longer to receive, and the plan prohibiting patients from paying for better medication even if it’s out of their own pockets.
 
The beginning phone call recording successfully plays on the overall decline of customer service in this country. People used to have a personal relationship with their doctor; now it looks as if health care in this country will revolve around automated answering services and civil servants rather than personal care and medical professionals. And the end, “disconnecting now, good-bye,” suggests the plan’s general disregard for the individual.
 
It will be interesting to see how the Democrats respond, but we may be on hold for a while.

With the recent announcement of Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court, news agencies and partisan watch groups have eagerly taken on the job of defining this woman and what her appointment would mean for this country.

Sotomayor’s liberal leanings could greatly impact future decisions concerning hot-button social issues like gay rights and abortion. Comments made in lectures at Berkeley Law School and at Duke University are providing plenty of fodder for conservative opponents.

Coalition for Constitutional Values has released a nationwide ad campaign in support of Sotomayor’s nomination. With a six-figure buy, the thirty second commercial provides a brief biography and pictures of the potential Justice with Obama’s nomination speech emphasizing Sotomayor’s qualifications.

In rebuttal, but on a much smaller scale, conservative Judicial Confirmation Network’s attack ad uses Sotomayor’s Berkeley comment saying Latina women will more often make better decisions than white men to question her ability to provide “equal justice under the law.” The web ad is up on most major news sites and is being passed around via email through conservative activists.

Obama’s approval rating is high and the Democrats enjoy a majority in the Senate, making her confirmation likely. This brings up an important question: is it necessary or appropriate to run campaign-style ads for a Supreme Court Justice nominee? Sotomayor’s confirmation is dependent on the votes of a mere 100 senators.  Does publicizing the nominee to arouse public interest and opinion carry any weight? 

Neither ad mentions any of Sotomayor’s previous rulings that would give insight to her stance on any major issue. These ads provide no firm understanding of where she stands. Both rely on her character, which each side is easily manipulating in their favor.

Only time will tell; when hearings begin in July, we will see if ads have any effect in the court of public opinion or on partisan voting blocs.

In a post, titled “A HUGE DEVELOPMENT IN FEC 527 ENFORCEMENT?” from Rick Hansen’s Election Law Blog (http://electionlawblog.org), it appears the FEC has made a recent ruling on allowing more flexibility on communications for 527 political committees.

According to Hansen:

The FEC, without a press release, recently posted this letter (see also here) in regards to a complaint filed by Democracy 21 and the Campaign Legal Center against the Lantern Project (MUR 5854). The Lantern Project ran ads that were critical of Rick Santorum, then running for U.S. Senate reelection, but that did not contain express advocacy. For example, one ad said: “From privatizing Social Security to cutting student loans for the middle class, when Rick Santorum has to choose between siding with George Bush or middle class Pennsylvanians, Santorum supports Bush. What is he thinking?” The group’s mission statement said its purpose was to “shine the light on Rick Santorum’s extreme positions, failed policies and hypocritical statements — and let the facts speak for themselves.”

Though the FEC agrees the ads are critical of Santorum, and arguably at least one of them attacked his character or fitness for office, they did not constitute an expenditure because they neither contain express advocacy nor do they meet a WRTL-type test for the functional equivalent of express advocacy.

If this is going to be the standard for what 527s can do in the next election without running into the danger of being classified as a political committee, I expect the next few elections will see a great growth in this activity. I think this ruling will take a lot of fear away from potential 527 donors in the next election.

For political parties, interest groups and political advertisers this could be considered big news.

Over the past several years, 527’s teeth have been filed down as a result of rulings and legislation that ramped up regulations in what a 527 could or could not say in their communications within the theater of a particular election.  There have also been new regulations on 527 donor reporting, in an attempt to shed light on the funders of these groups, which pared back their ability to get large donations from individuals who desire to have their identity and contribution completely veiled.

Hat Tip: @politicsmag via twitter

Digesting all the spending being proposed in Washington can get difficult. It’s hard to comprehend and place this new massive spending in context.

While sobering, this well-produced video, from Stop Spending Our Future (Sponsored by The Heritage Foundation and Americans for Prosperity Foundation) does a good job at providing a visual aid to the many numbers (read: tax dollars and debt) being tossed around by politicians.

They have a number of other well-produced web videos at stopspendingourfuture.org

The National Republican Senatorial Committee, under new chairman JOHN CORNYN, has a new website and brand new spot targeting Senate Majority Leader HARRY REID.

The effort, the first targeting a 2010 senate candidate, flies under the website called www.REIDistributewealth.com .

The new spot, titled, “Trillion” was released this week.  The details of the broadcast buy are unclear. 

The NRSC’s interest in targeting Reid stem from what Republicans consider his staunch partisan approach and what appears to be his electoral vulnerabilities.

A Las Vegas Review-Journal article on Monday cited recent polling, by a conservative political action group, showing Reid vulnerable among Nevada voters.

Reid was viewed favorably by 47 percent and unfavorably by 47 percent of Nevadans surveyed by the Salt Lake City-based polling firm NSON Opinion Research for the Legacy PAC, a California-based activist group that hopes to target Reid for defeat in 2010.

In the survey of 400 Nevada voters, which carries a margin of error of plus or minus 4.9 percentage points, 47.3 percent viewed Reid favorably, including 27.3 percent who had a very favorable view and 20 percent whose opinion was somewhat favorable.

Among the 46.8 percent who had an unfavorable opinion of Reid, 8.8 percent of those polled viewed him somewhat unfavorably, while a whopping 38 percent had a very unfavorable view.

Today, two political video media pieces were sent to me, which could not be any more different from one another.   One is an example of interesting and thought provoking, while the other is an example of stodgy and standard.  

The first piece was produced by CatholicVote.org, a faith based educational program dedicated to informing all Americans about the critical issues in the public policy arena.  

According to their website, “Life: Imagine the Potential™ is our newest campaign designed for sharing on the Internet, and for use on broadcast TV. ” The campaign is focused on reaching beyond staunch pro-lifers, Americans who are either indifferent, or who have not yet thought about the great potential of every human life.”

The second piece is a spot released by Terry McAuliffe’s campaign for VA Governor.  It’s the first television ad in the race, five months before the state’s June primary.   He is truly defining ’slow burn’ strategy, this far out with TV.

While neither media piece appears to be edited using high end graphics or cinematic techniques, the catholic spot has much more value in terms of appeal.  The music grabs your attention, while the chyron graphics keep you guessing with questions.  It creates drama and makes the viewer think about the spot after it’s played.  

As much as the Catholic piece provokes interest, The McAuliffe spot provokes boredom.  It’s chyron graphics are tired and the look and feel of the spot equally passe.  The spot could have been shot for a candidate in 2002 – really.  It’s surprising, for a guy who has and can raise millions of dollars.  With the amount of money McAuliffe is spending on the buy, months in advance, I would imagine much more would have gone into producing a much better spot.  

Yes its bio, and yes it’s for  raising name ID, but that still doesn’t mean all creativity is lost.

Two spots. Same day. Different effects.

If you read my post: Top 50 books for Political Operatives, you can probably tell that I take my political reading seriously. I recently stumbled upon an interesting new book that examines, one of my favorite topics, the use of emotional appeal in political advertising.

The book, titled, Campaigning for Hearts and Minds: How Emotional Appeals in Political Ads Work (Click here), is a must read for anyone interested in political media communications and advertising.

Author, TED BRADER, provides an in-depth analysis of varying political advertising strategies, with specific attention to non verbal cues, an aspect of political media rarely touched by others in academia.  He references and discusses well-known and obscure political advertising campaign tactics, which played an important role in recent and historical elections.

In his thorough examination, Brader makes a strong argument; that carefully crafted audio and visual elements used in political advertising effectively create an emotional appeal which has an intrinsic dramatic effect on viewer/voting audiences.

In 2006, I wrote a piece for Politics Magazine (aka Campaigns & Elections), which I similarly argued that emotional appeals are the strongest form of political communications and advertising.

While my piece dealt more specifically with the use of images and symbolism related to September 11th in political advertising, I held that content and techniques used to create emotion is critical for maximizing moving voter opinion and creating action.

Here’s some relevant highlights from my piece:

Provoking emotion is one of the most important aspects to any political activity. 

Successful campaigns usually create a situation or series of situations that draw emotion from audiences – constituents or voters.  Emotional connections made in speeches, press releases, direct mail pieces or television spots are fundamental to controlling the message and the issues in an election.

Emotional appeals almost always trump rational appeals when attempting to gain political support or create negative views about an opponent.  Voters are more apt to create positive or negative feelings about an issue or candidate through emotions and sentiments rather than rational or logical arguments.

Campaigning for Hearts and Minds goes into much greater depth in making this argument.

(more…)