I had occasion to defend myself this week after displaying an ASPC campaign poster in Wig. The poster in question accused a political opponent of actively betraying the student body, albeit in a roundabout way, through her previous actions as an officeholder.

What follows is some justification of why negative advertising, when its content is true, should be allowed or even encouraged.

1. Prohibiting negative advertising is an advantage to students who have held office in the past. Negative advertising allows other candidates to reflect on the past performance of student officers.

The actions of a student officer should not be kept secret. Indeed, if a campaign ad points out an opponent’s action while they held office, it affords students an opportunity to judge whether that action was good or bad.

2. Student elections are largely lacking in substance. It’s not like half the candidates are pro-choice and the other are pro-life, nor would it matter if they were. Most candidates agree that they want Senate to be efficient and in touch with the students.

The most important criterion for deciding who to vote for, then, is an assessment of how well a student will perform his office duties.

Perhaps the best reflection of potential is how well he performed his office duties in the past; this can best be reflected in so-called negative ads that point out unpleasing actions of an officeholder.
3. A candidate ought to run for office because he thinks he can fill the position better than the other candidates.

His goal in campaigning is to demonstrate not simply that he will do a good job, but that he will do a better job than the other candidates. Negative advertising allows him to point out other’s inadequacies.
4. Many people do not like negative ads, despite their important role in informing the electorate.

It is therefore at a candidate’s own risk to display negative advertising. Students may judge the presentation of a negative ad in the same way that they judge the allegations it contains.

Do they want to vote for a candidate who did such and such? Do they want to vote for a candidate who practices negative campaigning?
5. One criticism of negative campaigning is that it provides a narrow or biased account of the targeted candidate. A negative flyer affords little or no opportunity for rebuttal.

And a candidate certainly has the motivation to make his opponent look as bad as possible. Nevertheless, the electorate should decide how accurately an advertisement presents a candidate.

The same judgment must take place for positive ads, in which a candidate highlights certain reasons why he’s the right choice. Just as the negative advertiser omits positive qualities, a positive advertiser omits negative ones.

The same justification used to censor negative advertising could therefore be used to censor positive advertising.

Unfortunately, campaign overseers in this case were not immediately ready to make a decision on the appropriateness of negative advertising. I was dismayed this evening to receive an e-mail containing the following from Campaign Commissioner Sarah Minton: "This is to remind everyone that you are not allowed to use any campaign slogans or material in your flyers, posters, table tents, etc. that may have a negative context towards anyone or anything."

Fortunately, ASPC President Richard Park cleared up what seemed to be a knee-jerk response to anger over my negative ad.

"The elections code does not have any specific prohibition against negative advertising so we will allow it but with certain restrictions. First, negative advertising must be truthful. Second, you must focus on substantive issues.

Straight character attacks that have little to do with qualifications for Senate will be grounds for disqualification."

Certainly, candidates guilty of libel or slander should be punished to protect individuals and the electoral process.

Candidates, however, should never be immune from actions in their past that may reflect on their potential efficacy in office. If you encounter a negative ad in this campaign, I encourage you to consider it as what it is: a supplement to help you vote for the best candidate.

If electing the best candidate is not the goal of every candidate and every voter in these ASPC elections, it is a sad reflection on our motivations and integrity.