×
×
homepage logo
LOGIN
SUBSCRIBE

Out-of-state ads out of bounds

By Staff | May 17, 2013

Sen. Kelly Ayotte was quick to speak out against out-of-state advertising groups last week as she defended her controversial vote against the Manchin-Toomey gun control amendment.

Now that the ads crossing the state airwaves are in her favor, the senator has less to say.

This week, a political action committee backed by Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., and rumored presidential hopeful, released a television ad in defense of Ayotte and her vote against the bipartisan compromise, which stalled in the Senate.

The ad is the latest in a series attacks waged on both sides by out-of-state groups.

Earlier this month, the NRA launched an ad praising Ayotte for her vote. The American Future Fund, a conservative, Iowa-based group, followed suit with a $350,000 ad campaign that defended Ayotte and criticized other out-of-state ads.

Meanwhile, the progressive Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a gun control advocacy group led by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, ran an ad campaign against Ayotte, citing polling numbers in favor of background checks.

Officials on both sides spoke out against the opposing ads.

In an opinion piece printed in The Telegraph on May 8, Ayotte derided the “out-of-state special interests” who had aired ads attacking her for her vote. Meanwhile, a spokesman from the New Hampshire Democratic Party took aim this week at the Rubio ad campaign, which he labeled as “deceitful and dishonest ads bought by out-of-state rightwing politicians and PACs for Kelly Ayotte.”

For either side to criticize the other over out-of -state ads is disingenous and ignores the new political realities in New Hampshire and around the country.

First there is the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling, which opened the door for corporations, unions and other groups to spend unlimited amounts on advertising. New Hampshire saw the fallout from this last year during the heated debate over repealing the same-sex marriage law, which drew big money from out-of-state groups ,pro and con.

Secondly, there is New Hampshire’s growing status as a key battleground state.

The once-red state has grown increasingly purple in recent years.

This has never been more true than in 2012, when New Hampshire’s four electoral votes were considered critical to the presidential race.

This drew far greater attention, in terms of time and money, from candidates and political groups alike.

This could be the case once again in the 2016 presidential race. Some analysts consider Ayotte’s senate seat up for grabs that year, as well – due in part to plunging polling numbers following her vote on background checks, so, unless New Hampshire’s politicians and party leaders speak out, there’s little reason to expect these out-of-state voices to go away any time soon.

If they truly stand against these out-of-state influences, Ayotte, the state Democratic Party and other political leaders should reject the ads – for and against them. They should tell these outside groups to stay home.

Newsletter

Join thousands already receiving our daily newsletter.

Interests
Are you a paying subscriber to the newspaper? *