Published September 29, 2006 05:37 pm - An analysis of a DFL ad regarding Tim Pawlenty's position on property taxes uses his own words, but leaves out other positions he has taken
Ad Watch: Analysis of DFL’s ’Which is Worse?’ ad
By Brian Bakst
Associated Press
NAME: “Which is Worse?”
MEDIUM: Television
LENGTH: 30 seconds
SPONSOR: The DFL Party
COST: $225,000 for one week.
TARGET AREA: Statewide.
TEXT: Announcer: “Here’s what Tim Pawlenty said in August 2002.”
Pawlenty: “You can’t run around the state and say I’m not going to increase taxes and then cut LGA in a way that drives up local property taxes.”
Announcer: “But just eight months later Tim Pawlenty broke his word and cut local government aid by one third. And homeowners have been paying the price ever since. Property taxes up more than $1 billion. Support for local police down. It’s hard to say which is worse: Pawlenty driving up property taxes or not telling the truth about it.”
KEY VISUALS: Footage of Pawlenty delivering a 2002 speech in Worthington, gesturing as he explains the cause-and-effect relationship between local aid and property taxes. It’s followed soon after by solemn images of a family in front of their house, a man and woman paying bills and a police car speeding down the street. It closes with the words “Which is worse?” imposed over Pawlenty at the podium.
GOAL: To neutralize Pawlenty’s perceived advantage on the tax issue by arguing that he contributed to local tax increases. Pawlenty has hit Democrat Mike Hatch hard on taxes, claiming the attorney general would raise taxes.
ANALYSIS: The ad hits Pawlenty with his own words and statistics that come from his administration. While dated, the remarks establish that he understood a connection between state spending actions and local taxes. But property tax decisions still rest with local officials. Not all communities pushed up taxes dramatically — some dipped into reserves or scaled back services. And Pawlenty has responded to the property tax criticism by calling for a cap on future increases and agreeing in a subsequent budget to restore a slice of the money that was cut in 2003.
The ad shows that neither side is ceding the tax issue. Pawlenty has run ads alleging Hatch would be forced to raise taxes to meet his spending promises. Another dynamic is worth paying attention to. So far, Pawlenty has used his own campaign to launch over-the-airwaves broadsides. Hatch has left the attacks to his party and DFL-friendly groups while stressing the positive tone of the campaign he is personally running.