The politics of stealth ads

Candidates denounce stealth political ads but they do not disavow them. That's why we should not be surprised to see well-financed front groups buying expensive television time to influence the outcome of the gubernatorial campaign in Massachusetts this year.

For all his complaints about the negative TV ad aimed at him last week, at least Christopher Gabrieli knew where it originated. Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey's name was at the bottom of the screen. Healey was the target of something far worse, the first unregulated attack ad of the season, a nasty 30-second critique paid for by an innocuous sounding group called the Patriot Majority Fund. It's a front for union and Democratic interests.

A gaping hole in election law allows the Democratic Governor's Association, Local 1199 of the Service Employees International Union, and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers to pour money into political advertising without having to put their names to the message. The practice is duplicitous at best.

``We do not see this as sneaky. We are trying to have a healthy discussion of issues of concern to working families," says Erika Soto Lamb , the fund's spokeswoman who works for O'Neill and Associates, the public relations firm headed by Democratic activist Thomas P. O'Neill III, the former lieutenant governor and son of the late speaker of the US House. Nothing unusual there, she says, ``As you know, we have strong connections to labor groups." And to the Democratic governors.

So-called issue advertising allows interest groups to frame a policy debate or define a political candidate without any public accountability. As long as an ad does not urge a vote for or against a candidate, these tax-exempt groups are not subject to the financial disclosure laws that govern campaign spending. Supporters of the practice call it free speech. Critics call it the best free speech money can buy.

The 30-second Patriot Majority spot pounds the viewer with negative information about the Republican candidate for governor but stops just short of urging a vote against her by concluding, ``Kerry Healey just doesn't get it."

The Democrats did not invent this tactic. So-called 527 groups , named for the section of the Internal Revenue Service Code that governs their actions, have been most conspicuous in national campaigns. The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth targeted Senator John F. Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee in 2004, the same year that MoveOn.org launched ads attacking President Bush.

Not surprisingly, the Healey campaign is outraged by the Patriot Majority Fund ad. ``It's an anonymous smear," says Amy Lambiaso , a Healey campaign spokeswoman. But ask if the Healey campaign will insist that no similar group launch campaign ads for Healey or against her eventual Democratic opponent in the general election campaign and Lambiaso demurs. All the campaign will pledge is that the Healey will ``not coordinate" with any such advocacy group. No kidding. To do so would violate election laws.

Gabrieli, who denounced Healey's ad characterizing him as a greedy tycoon, is less concerned about front groups surreptitiously dumping mega-dollars into advertising to influence the race for governor. ``We're obviously focused on Kerry Healey's misleading attacks on us," said Dan Cence , Gabrieli's campaign spokesman. ``We haven't given much thought to that [the role of 527s]. I don't see what control we would have over it. The voters are pretty savvy about this sort of thing. They can figure it out."

The voters should not have to figure out who the Patriot Majority Fund really is. The use of covert campaign advertising ought to be illegal. What voters can figure out is why political candidates won't say that. The furtive tactic that whacks them this week might benefit them next week. Is it any wonder that the public is cynical about politics?

Eileen McNamara is a Globe columnist. She can be reached at mcnamara @globe.com.