On Feb. 15, Leslie Moonves, the brilliant CEO of CBS, gave a piece of good news to investors — there would be an addition to the bottom line in 2012 of about $190 million, thanks to huge spending on political commercials coming into the network and its owned and operated...

After accusing the U.S. Chamber of Commerce of using foreign funding for election ads, Democrats should answer the same charges about whether organized labor is using foreign money to elect Democrats this November.

There has been much handwringing recently about super PACs and their potential to doom the American political system. As the argument goes, super PACs mean that corporations or wealthy individuals can make unlimited contributions to groups that are thinly-veiled surrogates for candidates, so candidates can stay positive while the PACs function as attack dogs. Trouble is, this argument isn't true.

Behind the disdain of the high-minded for negative campaign spots is a fear that they will erode Americans' faith in politics and government.

Negative campaign ads may be effective, but they produce a backlash that erases any benefit.

Looming on the horizon is a political battle over direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs.

Many people love to hate direct-to-consumer advertising, but research suggests the ads do more good than harm.

Mitt Romney was the John Kerry of the debate. He was far more articulate than Perry, but it was Romney who made the gaffe that will almost certainly appear in campaign ads that are probably being written as you read this, when he declared: "There are a lot of reasons not to elect me."