When Democratic gubernatorial candidate Kathleen Sebelius says she’s tough on crime, Republican opponent Tim Shallenburger and GOP operatives from Washington, D.C., to Topeka crank out research that implies she hasn’t met a felon she didn’t like.

And when Shallenburger strays from previous statements on positions, the Sebelius campaign pounces, asserting the only thing certain about Shallenburger is his willingness to say or do anything to get elected.

The rapid punch and counterpunch between the campaigns is sometimes misleading, and according to political experts, frustrating to voters.

“Nationwide, candidates and their campaign consultants and advisers have discovered in the last 20 years, it’s much easier to win votes emotionally than intellectually,” said Aaron Brock, news director for Project Vote Smart, a nonpartisan group that provides detailed information about political candidates. “It’s dangerous to democracy. If I can prove my opponent is a jerk, I don’t have to do anything else,” he said.

Political scientists say candidates’ stand on issues and their public records are fair game for voters to study to determine what kind of officeholder they would be.

And both Sebelius and Shallenburger own long public records, having voted on thousands of measures when they were members of the Kansas House. Sebelius was an influential state representative from Topeka from 1986 to 1994 before being elected state insurance commissioner.

Shallenburger served in the Kansas House from 1986 to 1998, where he rose to speaker from 1995 to 1998, before being elected state treasurer.

But what happens when those legislative voting records are clouded by extenuating circumstances?

“The political system is so murky, it’s incredibly difficult to be an informed voter,” Brock said.

Not a clear-cut picture

In the Legislature, lawmakers have been known to vote for a measure that they had earlier tried to kill, only because they want to be on record of having been supportive of something that may be popular with voters.

Sometimes lawmakers vote against a bill because they know a bill more to their liking is coming down the road, or they may vote for something that they know has no chance of passing. And aside from actual votes, there are a myriad number of ways for legislators to influence the course of legislation and cover their tracks.

The Sebelius and Shallenburger campaigns have tried to depict each other’s House voting records in the worst light possible. Compared with election battles in some states, the negative campaigning in Kansas has been relatively light, but with less than five weeks before the Nov. 5 contest, it appears the attacks will increase.

For example, Shallenburger and the state Republican Party have noted that Sebelius voted against HB 2782 in 1990, which would have established “drug-free zones,” around schools.

According to the GOP, the bill would have “enacted stern penalties for selling drugs or possessing drugs with the intent to sell within 1,000 feet of a school. Only nine other House members voted against the measure.”

But Sebelius said she voted against it because while “drug-free zones” sounded good politically, it offered no solution to the drug problem. “It pretends to get tough on drugs,” she said in her explanation of the vote that was entered in the House Journal. Sebelius said she favored setting up a narcotics task force and a statewide district attorney system.

Sebelius’ campaign has engaged in the same tactic. The campaign put together a three-page sheet of votes that alleged 21 instances where Shallenburger voted “to go easy on Kansas’ criminals.”

But one example misstated how he voted, and on several others, Shallenburger voted against a particular bill because it contained something else that he did not like. For example, the Sebelius campaign criticized him for voting against legislation that would have required drug testing for people on public assistance.

Bob Murray, Shallenburger’s spokesman, said Shallenburger opposed the bill because it also would have required alcohol testing, too.

“It’s not illegal to drink,” Murray said.

Truth comes second

So what does it say about people who are running for office when they will bend their opponents’ voting record? And how can voters detect these shenanigans?

“The emphasis in a political campaign is more on winning than telling the whole truth,” said Mel Kahn, a political science professor at Wichita State University.

Kahn said polls show most people get their information about political candidates from candidates’ ads and short stories on television news.

“This is why a citizen should be continuously involved in the political process. There is no substitute for that, but unfortunately that is the ideal that is not often met these days,” he said.

Stephen Medvic, an expert on campaign ethics who teaches at Franklin & Marshall College in Lancaster, Pa., said comparing candidates’ records on issues was the most productive way for voters to learn about candidates because the comparison usually prompts a debate.

“A lot of research shows that the voters’ wish and demand for a purely positive campaign is naive and may be counterproductive. Some of the most misleading and useless political advertising is purely positive advertising,” he said.

But Medvic said candidates would often cast their opponents’ records in the most negative way. And even if the candidate doesn’t, independent advocacy groups will do it separate from the candidates’ campaign.

He said voters needed to realize this, stay informed on the issues and watch for who or what group is behind certain claims about the candidates.