<\/p>\n
Political campaign ads and donor solicitations have long been deceptive. In 2004, for example, U.S. presidential candidate John Kerry, a Democrat, aired an ad stating that Republican opponent George W. Bush \u201csays sending jobs overseas\u00a0\u2018makes sense\u2019<\/a>\u00a0for America.\u201d<\/p>\n Bush never said<\/a>\u00a0such a thing.<\/p>\n The next day Bush responded by releasing an ad saying Kerry \u201csupported higher taxes\u00a0over 350 times<\/a>.\u201d This too was a\u00a0false claim<\/a>.<\/p>\n These days, the\u00a0internet has gone wild with deceptive<\/a>\u00a0political ads. Ads often pose as polls and have misleading clickbait headlines.<\/p>\n Campaign fundraising solicitations are also rife with deception. An analysis of 317,366 political emails sent during the 2020 election in the U.S. found that\u00a0deception was the norm<\/a>. For example, a campaign manipulates recipients into opening the emails by lying about the sender\u2019s identity and using subject lines that trick the recipient into thinking the sender is replying to the donor, or claims the email is \u201cNOT asking for money\u201d but then asks for money. Both\u00a0Republicans and Democrats do it<\/a>.<\/p>\n Campaigns are now rapidly\u00a0embracing artificial intelligence<\/a>\u00a0for composing and producing ads and donor solicitations. The results are impressive: Democratic campaigns found that donor\u00a0letters written by AI were more effective<\/a>\u00a0than letters written by humans at writing personalized text that persuades recipients to click and send donations.<\/p>\n \nHow The Conversation is different: Accurate science, none of the jargon<\/h2>\n