Voters are already cynical about politicians, particularly those at the state and national levels.

In Pennsylvania, the infamous pay-raise vote of 2005 motivated voters to defeat a record number of incumbents in the May 2006 primary and might lead to the defeat of even more incumbents in the approaching general election in November. At the national level, the scandal involving former Rep. Mark Foley's inappropriate text messages to young male pages in Congress has added voter disgust to the anger surrounding disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff's influence-peddling and the frustration over ongoing pork-barrel projects costing taxpayers billions of dollars.

Politicians as a group are held in such low regard by most people that they consistently end up near the bottom of any poll ranking the trustworthiness of various professions.

If most of the political ads running on television and radio between now and the Nov. 7 election are to be believed, voters can assume that regardless of who is elected to Congress in most districts across the nation, that person will be a liar and a cheat who also is on the take from special interests. Some of the negative ads also will have suggested that the winners of next month's election also will be enablers of child molesters and supporters of terrorists.

Although voters claim to be turned off by negative ads, nearly all campaign consultants say they work. On the one hand, negative ads tend to suppress votes for the person being attacked. But they also can fire up supporters of the person sponsoring the negative ads by fueling anger and indignation — even if based on false or misleading ads.

Because negative ads work, Democratic and Republican strategists predict that 90 percent of the campaign ads to be broadcast between now and Nov. 7 will be negative.

A recent article by the Associated Press noted that U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum has run ads suggesting supporters of challenger Robert Casey have been investigated for illegal activity or have links to crime. A pro-Democratic group has run ads saying that Santorum, along with a few other Republican senators, voted against upgraded body armor for troops in Iraq. Both ads lack truth.

At the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Public Policy Center, a Web site titled Factcheck.org takes apart some negative ads, charge-by-charge, and concludes which statements are true, partially true or outright false. It's entertaining to read the ad dissection, but it's also discouraging to see how widespread the use of false claims is in political ads.

Rather than the candidates themselves, party committees or independent groups not directly linked to the candidate produce the nastiest and most questionable attack ads. These groups often employ research staffs to comb through an incumbent's voting record and dig up dirt from his or her personal past.

Most of the negative campaign ads feature vague allegations and what can best be described as half-truths. Voters get the general idea that the candidate being attacked is bad, but they can't really determine if the ad's claims are accurate. By now, most voters agree with one man interviewed for an AP story about negative campaign ads, who said, "It's all half-truths, spinning, lying."

But such cynicism, fed by the steady stream of negative ads, is not good for democracy — nor is it good for the people who win the elections, because they carry the taint of the negative ads from the campaign.

The attacks and negativity dominating political ads are harmful on several levels, but politicians and their advisers cannot afford to unilaterally disarm, or stop the attack ads. So long as the other side is doing it, they have to counter.

Because these ads generally play fast and loose with the truth, negative ads don't help to educate voters. They make voters angry and fuel outrage, but they do little more.

Though negative ads and questionable attacks on political opponents have been around for as long as political contests, the effect of having citizens vote for the least-bad or the least-corrupt person is not helpful in restoring people's trust in their government.

Negative campaign ads can help people win elections, but those victories come at a steep cost.