Ontario's anti-tariff ad is clever, effective and legally sound, experts say

An Ontario government ad that attracted the wrath of U.S. President Donald Trump was successful — even if it didn’t produce the outcome provincial officials might have anticipated, say experts in political communication.

And, they expect, it will not face any serious legal challenges in the U.S., which allows a lot of latitude when it comes to political commentary.

The ad, which is airing in the U.S., features audio clips criticizing tariffs from a 1987 speech by U.S. President Ronald Reagan. It seems to have incensed Trump, who late on Thursday denounced it as "fake" — abruptly cutting off trade talks and accusing Canada of interfering with an upcoming U.S. Supreme Court decision.

“That ad worked. It was a good ad," said Alex Marland, a professor at Acadia University and the author of a book on political messaging.

He says the challenge for political advertising is to cut through the clutter, resonate with people and get their attention.

"In this particular case, the ad obviously was so successful that the president was upset."

Whether Ontario achieved its goals "is another thing," he said. "But the bottom line is, the ad was getting attention.”

Marland suggested Ontario run the ad for a couple more days in the hopes of getting media attention in the U.S. then “take their time” taking it down.

Premier Doug Ford says Ontario will end the $75 million campaign on Monday, because it achieved its goal “having reached U.S. audiences at the highest levels.” By continuing over the weekend, the ad will be seen during the first two World Series games. 

The Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute also criticized the ad, alleging it uses “selective audio and video” of the late Republican president. The foundation said it was reviewing its "legal options."

But Marland says the rules regarding such material in political ads have changed.

“I don’t have any concerns about it," he said. "If it gets used for political purposes, the main thing that I would be concerned about is if it’s manipulated, if content is spliced and suggests something that was nonintentional.”

Jacob Neiheisal, associate professor of political science with the University at Buffalo, also doubts the foundation would have much success with legal action, in part because U.S. courts have historically adopted a hands-off approach when it comes to political speech.

“Apart from defamation or slander or something like that, there’s really not much that can be done if something is simply misleading or even outright false,” he said.