Go to National Section
The Thrust and Parry of Political Ads
In Pennsylvania 21, outside interest groups and parties spent more on TV ads than the candidates themselves. Such "issue ads" were unrestrained by federal spending rules, as long as the groups didn't "collude" with a candidate or openly advocate his election. Despite that rule, as these commercials make clear, it was usually obvious which candidate the ads favored -- or disdained.
Democratic Ad: "Changeling"
Announcer: "We voted for change last November, but is this the change we wanted? Instead of voting for us . . .
. . . Congressman Phil English voted the way Newt Gingrich told him -- 94 percent of the time. Newt told Phil to cut school lunches, education, job training . . .
. . . so that the wealthy special interests could get a tax break. And Phil English did. He's working for Newt, not for us. Phil English has put the interests of his party leadership before the people of Pennsylvania. That's gonna change."
Type at bottom of screen:
"Paid for by Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee"
Republican Ad: "Chapter Two"
Announcer: "The big labor bosses in Washington, D.C., have a big scheme to buy the Congress. They've spent $150,000 here on ads favoring Ron DiNicola because big labor wants to buy control of Congress."
Woman: "They think they can buy Congress?"
Announcer: "They oppose requiring welfare recipients to work; they're for higher taxes and against a balanced budget . . . The big unions spend money on ads because they want Ron DiNicola to vote their way."
Woman: "So who's going to represent me?"
Announcer: "Tell the big labor bosses Pennsylvania is not for sale."
Type at bottom of screen:
"Paid for by Pennsylvania Republican State Committee"