L. Sandy Maisel, Darrell West, and Brett Clifton show a keen understanding of the fundamental motive underlying the behaviors of political candidates and consultants: the desire to win. They also understand the lack of interest that most citizens have in politics. They exhibit a refreshing skepticism about the more high-flown aspirations of reformers, without entirely giving up on the possibility of improving campaign discourse and thereby improving the quality of American elections.

The authors investigate a variety of measures intended to elevate the level of political discussion. Reforms that voters can observe and understand, such as candidate debates and issue forums, seem to have the best record for improving discourse during election campaigns. Maisel, West, and Clifton generally express skepticism about more complex, less visible initiatives—such as codes of campaign conduct and pledges to refrain from negative advertising—and their data mostly support these views, documenting how outside actors can engage in attacks eschewed by official campaign organizations, fueling cycles of candidate accusations that their opponents have broken their pledges. According to the authors, straightforward reforms are less vulnerable to being manipulated by campaigns, and thus more likely to improve the general public functioning of the campaign process.

Evaluating Campaign Quality is based upon an admirably wide-ranging mixture of data collection methods, including a national opinion survey and a content analysis of 22 competitive House and Senate races. The authors devote special attention to political consultants, exploring their views through a survey, focus groups, and elite interviews. Their efforts were guided by an advisory board and a peer review panel that included many of the leading figures in political consulting and applied political science. In addition to seeking multiple reliable data sources, they should also be praised for including extensive methodological appendices.

Their analysis of political consulting leads the authors to raise serious questions about the professional status of the field. While it does include particular skills such as survey research, political consulting does not require abstruse knowledge or highly technical expertise. Certificate programs may be growing, but there is no degree or examination that opens the door to political professionalism as one would find for medicine or law. Anyone can claim to be a campaign consultant, and the main credential is a record of winning. Given this fairly unstructured situation, it is unsurprising that few consultants thought that self-regulation, even under the auspices of the American Association of Political Consultants, had much prospect of restraining campaign conduct. Nor did they see licensing or certification as viable options. Consultants were almost relentlessly pessimistic about reforming campaign conduct: They want to make money, candidates want to win, and little will stand in their way.

Since the authors repeatedly decry campaign coverage, especially on the local level, for being superficial and horse-race obsessed, it is puzzling that they do not include journalists in their study,. They suspect that reporters are overextended and underqualified. But it would have been helpful to hear journalists' own explanations regarding why and how they decide to cover elections. While the authors offer recommendations about how to educate journalists so that they can improve campaign coverage, they are not able to tell us what actual newspeople—constrained by time and money—would think of these solutions.

Political practitioners will find the book to be an enjoyable, helpful, and realistic look at their world. Reform advocates may find its levelheadness bracing but should appreciate the authors' support for some of their proposals. Journalists will find some valuable suggestions for improving their work. Academics who focus on campaigns and elections, mass media, and political parties will also appreciate this work. Those of a more theoretical cast may find the book lacking in broader ambitions, but not in fundamental rigor.

Campaign reformers often ascribe the low level of political trust in the United States to the impact of unethical campaigning, particularly negative television advertisements designed by consultants. But Americans have been distrustful since at least the late 1960s, while the era of civic optimism lasted for little more than the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations. While we do not have data about how Americans viewed their politicians before the rise of political behaviorialism in the 1950s, the works of Mark Twain and H. L. Mencken could tell us that cynicism may be more the norm than the exception in American history. Indeed, what constitutes a “good” campaign? One that provides an elevated level of discourse? One where voters understand the differences between the candidates? One that brings the largest number of voters to the polls? (What does that say about the Gilded Age period of sleaze and sky-high turnout?) Or one that produces a favorable result? And more to the point, who decides? Candidates? Journalists? The electorate?

Ultimately, Maisel, West, and Clifton suggest that while some campaign reforms are worthwhile, the solutions to the debasement of political discourse lie beyond what can be provided by good-conduct pledges. Nonpartisan groups should monitor a few highly visible elections and publicize poor practices so that candidates and consultants come to see fairness and substance as being in their own interest. (Indeed, consultants do remark that “ad watches” can make them more careful about making unsubstantiated claims.) But reformers ultimately need to convince voters to demand “more information, civil campaigns, and substantive debate.” As part of this admittedly difficult task, the authors suggest electoral reforms that would increase participation, making the electorate more representative and less vulnerable to last-minute negative attacks: early voting, automatic registration, making Election Day a holiday, even compulsory voting. Perhaps the solutions to low voter turnout may not lie in improving campaign quality but in broader, more systemic changes. Or are we simply confronting the age-old conflict between civic virtue and private interest, among the demands of participatory democracy, the drives of ambitious politicians, and the desires of an apolitical populace? Do Americans get the campaigns we deserve? The question remains. But Maisel, West, and Clifton are to be commended for improving the quality of its discussion.