We Give Laws a Bad Name: An Empirical Examination of How Misleading Law and PAC Names Pollute Legal Perception

Abstract

Journalists and commentators have dismissed acronym-titled laws like the SAFE Act (Secure Access to Firearms Enhancement) and slogan-based political action committee (“PAC”) names like Americans for America as window dressing concocted by uncreative political operatives. Beyond the fact that law titles and PAC names have become punching bags in the press, they share another quality: they both appear with frequency in political ads about ballot initiatives and sometimes appear on ballots, themselves. Because of their salience in election and voting scenarios, law titles and PAC names have been used tactically in an apparent effort to increase the memorability or favorability of the things they label. Often, these names fairly describe the laws with which they are associated. But a sinister practice has emerged—specifically, using misleading or inapt names.

There is evidence that political operatives understand the power of names, spending considerable resources on name design. Few scholars have empirically tested whether these tactical names influence how people perceive laws, but a recent study provided evidence that they do, finding that apt acronym-titled laws are more memorable and can increase a law’s favorability under certain circumstances. That study, however, did not examine the influence of PAC names, nor did it test inapt names. We designed a novel experiment to fill this void by testing two common tactical naming types: acronym short titles and slogan-based PAC names in apt and inapt versions.

The results of our experiment are disturbing. Our most important finding is that participants’ opinions about laws were profoundly altered by the names of PACs that sponsored those laws and that the effect was most pronounced with inaptly named PACs. Misleading PAC names increased a law’s favorability when those names falsely signaled compatibility with a participant’s political preference and decreased favorability when they falsely signaled incompatibility with a participant’s political preference. As for acronym laws, we observed, consistent with prior work, that acronym names could influence a law’s favorability and in a broader array of circumstances than were observed in the prior study.

Worse yet, trying to limit misleadingly named PACs will run into significant constitutional impediments. An outright ban on the practice would likely run afoul of the First Amendment. Disclaimers that warn the public of the unreliability of PAC names would likely fare better, but neither their constitutionality nor their effectiveness is assured.

Keywords: Empirical Legal Studies, First Amendment, PACs, Acronym Laws, Legisprudence, Political Science, Political Communication, Partisan Cues, Framing Effects, Feelings-As-Information Theory