Ads are beginning to file in on central Arkansas' airwaves and Web pages in the race for the region's congressional seat, but the most cutting ads, so far, haven't come from the candidates themselves.
Outside groups began pouring money into the race between Republican incumbent U.S. Rep. French Hill and Democratic state Rep. Clarke Tucker almost immediately after May's primary election -- a sign that the November contest will be highly competitive, political scientists said.
But the rhetoric from those outside groups has both candidates crying foul. Tucker, for instance, took issue with mailers and online advertising from the Republican Majority Fund -- the political action committee of U.S. Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark. -- linking the state legislator to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, despite Tucker's repeated insistence that he wouldn't support a Pelosi bid for House leadership.
Last week, Hill objected to the Democratic House Majority PAC's digital ad that criticized his voting record on health care legislation. Hill called the ad "falsified."
Hal Bass, professor emeritus of political science at Ouachita Baptist University in Arkadelphia, said at this point in the race, both candidates are trying to frame the contest on their own terms, and the early activity from both sides suggests that each is taking the race seriously.
"What candidates do is rely on their friends and allies to do a lot of the more negative campaigning, and not be paired with allegations of negative campaigning," Bass said. "It gives them plausible deniability in a sense."
Hill, a Little Rock banker, won the 2nd Congressional District seat in 2014, defeating Democrat Pat Hays of North Little Rock. Hill won re-election in 2016 with more than 58 percent of the vote over Democratic challenger Dianne Curry of Little Rock.
Tucker, a Little Rock attorney, has served in the state House of Representatives since 2015. He secured the Democratic nomination for the 2nd Congressional District seat in May, avoiding a runoff in a four-way race.
National Democratic groups have identified the central Arkansas seat as one the party has a chance to flip in November's midterm election.
Those groups have attacked Hill for his votes on health care and tax-cutting legislation. The House Majority ad posted online last week criticized Hill's vote for a House health care bill in 2017 that the group said would've hurt older Americans. The ad cited the AARP.
In a statement, the AARP distanced itself from the ad, emphasizing that the organization is nonpartisan and didn't help produce the ad.
Hill said the ad was "falsified."
"I have a record of working to strengthen Medicare and Social Security for Arkansans and have worked to replace the current failing healthcare law with patient-centered market reforms that increase affordability and access for our seniors and families," Hill said in a news release. "Any outside groups who try to distort that for political purposes are failing Arkansas voters."
Asked what was false in the ad, an AARP spokesman said it gave the false impression that AARP helped create it. Mike Siegel, a Hill campaign spokesman, said it left out key details.
"House Majority PAC created an ad to intentionally mislead voters," Siegel said. "Not only did they leave out important contextual facts, but they fabricated a tax that doesn't exist. When they could not attack Congressman Hill's pro-growth, pro-national security record, they decided to obscure the truth to mislead voters."
Jeb Fain, House Majority PAC's communications director, said the group frequently cites nonpartisan sources like AARP and newspapers.
"Congressman Hill is desperately trying to distract from his own record because he can't explain his vote for a health care bill that a respected, nonpartisan organization report said would impose an 'Age Tax' on Americans aged 50-64."
Republican groups have said age-adjusted tax credits in the bill, which did not pass in the Senate, would have helped offset increased premiums.
Tucker, for his part, has been in the cross hairs of Cotton's PAC. The group, through digital ads and a string of mailers, has tied him to Pelosi and some more-liberal Democrats' proposal to abolish the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency.
Hill's campaign also ran a television ad tying Tucker to Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, higher taxes and bigger government.
Tucker responded with a television ad of his own, reiterating his opposition to Pelosi's House leadership and criticizing Hill for starting the campaign with a negative attack.
Addressing the mailers sent out by the Republican Majority Fund, Tucker's campaign has pointed to the immigration section of his website that says he supports Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and he believes the U.S. can secure its borders and show compassion, particularly to children brought to this country by their parents and now here illegally.
"The attack ads we've seen from Congressman Hill and his special interest backers in Washington are purposefully misleading, to put it generously, and are simply an attempt to distract from his record in Washington where he voted to make our health care more expensive and end protections for people living with pre-existing conditions," Tucker spokesman Graham Senor said.
Hill's campaign has spent about $308,295 on advertising thus far; Tucker has spent about $200,449, according to Federal Election Commission data.
Both campaigns are expected to increase ad spending as the race inches closer to Election Day on Nov. 6.
Gary Nordlinger, a professional in residence at the George Washington University Graduate School of Political Management, said television advertising is most effective closer to Election Day.
"The persuadable voters tend to be the low information voters," Nordlinger said. "They're not attentive in the summer, and it just kind of goes over their heads."
Nordlinger projected that a lot of outside money will be spent in Arkansas by both parties if polls show Tucker reaching within 10 points of Hill.
SundayMonday on 08/05/2018