The Ohio governor’s race has been thrown into controversy by an unusually personal attack advertisement from Republican candidate Vivek Ramaswamy against Democrat Amy Acton. The ad illustrates that while modern campaigns have new technologies and enormous advertising budgets, political mudslinging remains as old as American elections themselves.

The advertisement features Acton’s estranged mother, Donna Arthur, accusing her daughter of lying about her childhood and urging Ohioans not to elect her as governor. Arthur says Acton has misrepresented her past and questions her character. The video initially circulated online without clearly identifying who had produced it.

Ramaswamy subsequently acknowledged that his campaign was responsible and announced plans to spend roughly $4 million airing and promoting the advertisement.

What made the ad particularly controversial is the history behind Acton’s relationship with her mother. Acton has publicly described suffering sexual abuse and periods of homelessness as a child. Court and law-enforcement records cited by news organizations show that Arthur’s husband, Cledith Arthur, was indicted in 1978 on a charge of raping Acton, who was 12 at the time. He left Ohio before being tried.

Acton and her brother were subsequently removed from their mother’s custody, and Acton says she has had no relationship with her mother for nearly five decades. Her brother, Philip Stearns, condemned the advertisement and said their mother remained married to the man accused of abusing Acton until his death.

The reaction has crossed party lines. Republican Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine called the advertisement deeply troubling and urged Ramaswamy to remove it, while other Republicans, including Sen. Jon Husted, also criticized it. President Donald Trump, by contrast, defended Ramaswamy and encouraged him to continue running the advertisement. Ramaswamy has stood by the campaign, arguing that testimony from people who knew Acton closely is relevant to assessing her credibility.

Negative advertising can work when it raises doubts about a candidate on an issue voters already consider important, but attacks perceived as excessively personal can generate sympathy for the target and make the attacker appear cruel or desperate. That danger is particularly acute in this case because the dispute involves allegations of childhood sexual abuse rather than a candidate’s public record.

The ad hands Democrats ammunition to claim that Ramasamy is just the latest Republican to defend a child rapist, in addition to the protection given by the Trump Administration to those named in the Epstein files.

From a historical perspective, vicious personal campaigning is hardly new. The Library of Congress describes the presidential election of 1800 between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson as extraordinarily partisan and nasty. Partisans portrayed Jefferson as dangerously radical and irreligious, while Adams was attacked as authoritarian and elitist.

The election of 1828 between John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson was even more personal. Supporters on both sides used newspapers to circulate scandalous accusations. Jackson was portrayed as an adulterer, murderer, slave trader, and military tyrant, while attacks were also directed at his wife Rachel and the circumstances of their marriage. The Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery describes the contest as perhaps the nastiest presidential election in American history.

What has changed is not the instinct to attack opponents but the speed and scale with which attacks spread. Nineteenth-century accusations traveled through partisan newspapers, pamphlets, and speeches. Today, a provocative video can reach millions of voters through television and social media within hours.

The Ohio controversy demonstrates an enduring tension in democratic politics. Elections require candidates to scrutinize each other, but campaigns continually test where legitimate criticism ends and character assassination begins. Ramaswamy’s advertisement may ultimately influence the race less through what it alleges about Acton than through what voters believe it reveals about the candidate who chose to air it.