�鶹��Ƶ

This article also appeared in  /  

Political television advertising is breaking records in Colorado this election season –

and much of that advertising is negative.

But academics who study the impact of such ads question how effective they are.

Candidates and super PACs contracted for almost $36 million at just the four top
Denver stations between Aug. 2 and Oct. 23, based on information filed with the
Federal Communication Commission and analyzed by the CU News Corps.

Of the 32,470 spots that money will pay for, President Barack Obama’s campaign
will spend more than $9 million for 10,005 of them. That compares with 4,209 ads
for Republican Mitt Romney’s campaign at a cost of almost $5 million.

, co-author of , says two things stand out to him in this election.

“One, that there is more negative advertising than there has been in past years,” he
said. “[Second] is that it’s being driven a lot by the fact that the outside spending
from third party groups has been much higher than we’ve seen in previous
����𳦳پ��DzԲ�.”

In fact, the  at Wesleyan University in Connecticut
examined advertising in  from Sept. 9-30
and found that 58 percent of the 7,770 ads that aired in the Denver market were
negative. That compares with 70 percent of the 4,661 ads that aired in Grand
Junction and 64 percent of the 4,878 ads that aired in Colorado Springs.

Super PACs’ limitless fundraising has caused a significant spike in the number of
television ads this election, Franz and other academics say.

Obama’s campaign tops the list with more than $9 million in contracts since Aug. 2.
But five GOP groups contracted for $6.7 million – and that doesn’t count what they
spent before Aug. 2. That compares to $3.3 million contracted by three Democratic
groups.

Between Oct. 2 and Oct. 22,  almost tripled its ad contracts at the top four Denver stations, from $1.3 million to $3.6 million. The group was founded in 2010 by GOP strategist  and former Republican National Committee chairman  to promote Republican candidates.

On the Democratic side, the super PAC supporting Obama, , has contracted for $2.3 million in political ads since Aug. 2.

Because the candidates themselves have no direct say in how a super PAC spends its money, the outside organizations spend their money “pretty exclusively on negative advertising,” says , a teacher of political communication and media ethics at the University of Colorado.

Is all this spending worth it?

Not necessarily, says , associate professor of political science at Washington State University and co-author of .

“The effects of ads are always quite small in a presidential race,” Ridout says.

For voters who have already made their choice, like Joan Ringel of Denver, negative
advertising is more frustrating than it is persuasive.

“This year’s political ads make me sad and frustrated. They have no effect on my
choices… I hope that the disgusting saturation makes people immune to (negative
political ads),” says Ringel, who wouldn’t reveal who she plans to vote for.

In most cases, political advertising isn’t powerful enough to make people vote across
party lines. Experts refer to these rare cases as “party defectors.” Franz says it’s
highly unlikely all the political ads will connect with potential party defectors unless
they have “already become disillusioned with their party.”

And negative advertising may impact an elections outcome by keeping undecided
voters away from the polls.

“Negative ads can cause some people to stay home,” Skewes says. “If you’re a
candidate and you’re slightly ahead in a state, a barrage of negative advertising can
have the impact of keeping undecided voters at home.