Ad Watch Library Both Glendening (above) and Sauerbrey have run hard-hitting campaign ads on local television. Videos and Reviews Post reporters Daniel LeDuc and Charles Babington have written a series of "Ad Watches," reviewing the campaign advertisements of Parris N. Glendening and Ellen R. Sauerbrey. You can see these ads and read the reporters' reviews online in our Ad Watch Library.

By Scott Wilson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 24, 1998; Page A1

Maryland voters are witnessing the most sustained assault of negative political advertising in state history as two old enemies running for governor accent the worst of each other's records and invest the bulk of their money in the barrage.

The ads are coming at a rate of several hundred a week in Washington and Baltimore, bringing voters in Maryland's largest media markets a blur of unflattering photos, one-sided legislative records and ominous music. Such campaign tactics are common in New York, North Carolina and other states, but their level and frequency in Maryland this year have raised eyebrows among analysts and groups that monitor political advertising.

"The tone of the race is considerably more negative than Marylanders are used to," said Herb Smith, a political science professor at Western Maryland College. "The volume of advertising is at a historic high."

Select a ballot to see brief biographies of candidates and descriptions of the races and referendums. Select a Ballot Governor Other Statewide Anne Arundel Calvert Charles Howard Montgomery Prince George's St. Mary's * This report previews parts of The Washington Post Voters' Guide, to be published Oct. 31.

Gov. Parris N. Glendening (D) has used Republican Ellen R. Sauerbrey's vote against a civil rights bill to cast her as intolerant, not mentioning that it was state Senate Democrats who defeated the legislation. Sauerbrey has attacked the governor for "building stadiums instead of classrooms" even though Glendening has invested more in school construction than any of his predecessors over a similar period. Some commercials, such as Glendening's referring to Sauerbrey as "the point person" for the National Rifle Association, resort to name-calling. She hasn't taken money from the group for this campaign, but has accepted contributions from its state affiliate.

The stark advertising has arrived since Labor Day and follows a summer of upbeat biographical commercials. Polls continue to show the race close, and each candidate is now spending about $300,000 a week on ads designed to present in the harshest light the other's stand on issues ranging from ethics to environmental protection. Together the two rivals will spend more than $5 million on television ads, close to double the amount spent during their showdown four years ago when a cash-strapped Sauerbrey was forced to rely on public financing.

Both campaigns consider the blitz of television advertising the most effective way to carry their message directly to voters, unfiltered by the news media.

In his ads, Glendening tells voters that Sauerbrey is a staunchly conservative politician, not the moderate candidate she has presented herself as this year. He no longer appears in ads wearing the populist chambray shirt he wore in early commercials. In fact, he doesn't appear at all in some ads hitting Sauerbrey for her conservative voting record on abortion, the environment and civil rights.

Sauerbrey has called Glendening "absolutely shameless" about distorting her record, but in an interview yesterday, the governor said his commercials are fair.

"If you don't like the record, you think it's negative," Glendening said.

For her part, Sauerbrey is highlighting selected Glendening decisions as evidence the governor has overseen an unethical administration. She has moved away from positive ads featuring her with the state flower in her lapel, a smile on her face and a message of lower taxes and better schools. Now she talks about Glendening's "midnight pension scandal," public financing for Ravens Stadium in Baltimore and campaign contributions from companies that have received state-funded loans.

Glendening called the ads "nefarious and ambiguous," saying "some are just factually wrong." But Stuart Stevens, Sauerbrey's media adviser, said: "We're not going to apologize for the fact that people clearly like Ellen Sauerbrey a lot more than their candidate. We've run a very positive campaign."

Political analysts say hostile advertising can be risky, especially in Maryland, where political debate is generally restrained compared with the shrill name-calling of New York or the racial overtones of North Carolina campaigns. But the strategy is to reinforce doubts that voters may already hold; a recent Washington Post poll found that 55 percent of likely voters believe Sauerbrey is more conservative than she is letting on, while more than a third of the likely electorate believe Glendening is dishonest.

A review of 11 commercials aired by the two candidates since Sept. 1 shows Glendening has broadcast two attack ads – commercials that only mention the opponent – and Sauerbrey has shown one. Sauerbrey has aired three "advocacy" ads promoting her record without mentioning the governor, and Glendening has shown one. The governor has used two ads contrasting the two candidates' records; Sauerbrey has used one such ad.

While the number of attacks may seem small, the frequency with which they appear has given the race a negative edge. Moreover, outside groups are running ads for their chosen candidates that are far more strident than the campaigns', adding decibels to what Glendening calls the "air war."

The ads have grown decidedly darker as the race approaches Election Day. Before Friday's debate, for example, voters saw consecutive ads – first from Glendening attacking Sauerbrey's civil rights record, then from Sauerbrey calling the governor's tactics "a campaign of fear."

The tone changed in late September when Glendening started running commercials trumpeting his accomplishments while slamming Sauerbrey for opposing many of them. With polls showing education, crime and the environment as top campaign issues, Glendening touted the money he spent on school construction, restrictions on handgun sales and his closing several Eastern Shore tributaries after the 1997 outbreak of a toxic microbe that killed fish and sickened people.

An Oct. 19 ad by Glendening calls Sauerbrey "outside Maryland's tradition" of "tolerance and freedom" for her vote against several civil rights bills, including measures focusing on hate crimes and housing discrimination. The ad features footage of concerned African Americans – a constituency many analysts believe must vote in big numbers for Glendening to win.

Sauerbrey did vote against the Civil Rights Act during her 16 years as a legislator, but so did state Senate Democrats who killed the bill. Sauerbrey called the governor's ad "a great insult."

The Republican has hit hard at Glendening, too. In an Oct. 6 ad titled "Maryland's Future," Sauerbrey sharply criticizes the governor without ever mentioning her own candidacy, the only ad of her campaign currently doing so. With pictures of the publicly funded Ravens Stadium as backdrop, a narrator intones that Glendening "built stadiums instead of schools." Glendening did earmark $200 million in lottery proceeds to help finance the stadium, but he also built thousands of classrooms during his administration.

The narrator says Glendening "shocked voters with a midnight pension scam," a reference to his taking a higher retirement package upon leaving as Prince George's county executive. He later refused the increase. "With those priorities, he's going to need that high pension," the ad ends.

Staff writer Robert E. Pierre contributed to this report.