Last night the Politico published a piece by John G. Geer in which he argues negative campaign advertising has a positive impact on elections because…

“negative ads are 50 percent more likely to focus on policy than positive ads. Negative ads are also five times more likely to document their claims than positive ads. Finally, negative ads are two times more likely to be specific when mentioning issues than positive ads.”

He’s right, and here’s one that Jim Dyke and I produced for the RNC that serves as a good example.

These web videos go through a tremendous amount of internal scrutiny before launch to make sure facts are not misrepresented. It’s a process that YouTubers and JumpCutters don’t have to go through, which makes ’08 even more interesting.

We’re swirling in the calm before the storm, anticipating a flood of user-generated negative ads that will go unchecked by lawyers and the FEC. YouTube, JumpCut and the like will become a virtual rumor mill where 20-somethings will launch digital missiles at the candidates, forcing campaigns or their political parties to make a choice: “Do we respond?”

No.

Why? Well, for example… ParkRidge47’s anti-Hillary 1984 ad was mentioned in a Fox News interview just an hour ago, and was described as “devastating." But to whom?

Did Hillary Clinton really suffer from such an attack? Not really. The earned media frenzy high-beams focused instead on user-generated political advertising. Because that’s new(s).

Though user-generated ads will not be new in 08, responding to them will only perpetuate the story and give credence to their effort. Though its novice producers seek to help their cause, their work actually dilutes message and forces a candidate to go on defense.

Candidates keep above the fray by distancing themselves from their party's negative advertising (we like to say “contrast ads”), so why wouldn’t the parties do the same with UGC?