EDITORIAL:

Most political experts say there are two truisms when it comes to negative advertising: Voters always say they hate it, and it works.

A recent study by researchers at Delaware, Texas Tech and Indiana universities concluded that negative advertising works because it leaves you with a lasting memory. It repulses us, but we sure don’t forget it.

The negative advertising allegations and the subsequent whining about it ensued this week in Newport Beach. Councilman Keith Curry complained that Jack Croul, the moneyman behind the new City Hall referendum, is paying for fliers supporting Curry’s challenger, Dolores Otting. Curry says it circumvents the city’s campaign contribution limits when independent groups and individuals can pour cash into a candidate’s war chest.

Negative campaigning is an American tradition, and we’ve had a pretty strong stomach for such things.

In the 1800 election, President John Adams’ surrogates warned that Thomas Jefferson and his supporters were basically murderers and violent anarchists who would destroy the country. And that pales compared with the personal attacks in the race between Adams’ son John Quincy and Andrew Jackson.

Today, we face an economic storm we haven’t seen since the Great Depression. Voters are more preoccupied with their vanishing 401Ks than they are with the usual silly-season carping. They want real answers to their problems, and they expect them from their political leaders. Take note, politicians: Mud-slinging could make you appear that you are petty and that you don’t have your priorities straight.

So aside from the moral appeals to stick to the issues because negative campaigning only serves to polarize and suppress voter turnout, here’s something else to consider: Mud-slinging could backfire on you, too.

That’s good because most politicians are more sensitive to the practical effects of negative advertising than they are the moral or ethical ones.