Every year as candidates for public office try to get in the last word before the first Tuesday of November, I find myself bombarded with political advertising. Their persistence is admirable, but what good does it really do?

I find that all that this advertising does is drive me away from the candidate whose ad is running. These last minute ads, and political ads throughout the campaign, for that matter, are, more often than not, disparaging towards the other candidate. Instead of pointing out their strengths, favorable viewpoints, or promises of competence once in office, these candidates release torrents of hate speech over the television- maliciously slandering their opponent’s name. After taking in all this belligerent advertising, it becomes clear that there is no real winner: only losers. The candidate running the ad loses because they portrayed them self as the deceitful aggressor, the opposing candidate obviously loses because he or she has just been slandered, and the voters lose because now their voting choice has been skewed. Now instead of voting for the candidate that best represents what you stand for, the voter is forced to choose between whom he or she views as the lesser of the two evils. Neither person seems to be the right choice, and with both names so tarnished with lies and twisted words, how could there even be a right choice? This advertising has left the electorate wondering, “How could I vote when both candidates seem so corrupt?” And what is the cost of all this useless advertising?

In 2012, Linda McMahon ran for Connecticut state senate for the second time against Democratic Chris Murphy. During her 2 years of campaigning, following her defeat to Richard Blumenthal in 2010, McMahon spent $15.7 million on political advertising. McMahon spent nearly $16 million on only half of a small state, so one can only imagine the cost of political campaigns all over the country. It seems nearly impossible that such a massive sum of money could all be spent on just advertising. With so much money spent and so little to show for it, the advertising just seems wasteful. There are so many better uses of $16 million than the political ads that it was used for. Imagine how much food for a soup kitchen or shelter $16 million could buy. The money used could be put to much better use.

So when the outcome is so disadvantageous, why continue this practice of slanderous political advertising? In my opinion, it would be for the best for us to rid our political system of the habit. Not only does it cloud the ideas of voters, but it also wastes millions of dollars every year. So why even have it in the first place?