In Massachusetts, there was no such controversy -- because no such ad appeared in the Bay State. Or any ads, for that matter.

A week and a half before voters choose the country's next president, Vice President Al Gore and Texas Gov. George W. Bush aren't spending a dime to court voters here.

No television ads. No billboards. Nothing.

"There are parts of the campaign we're missing," said Michael Hannahan, a politics professor at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

Neither Gore nor Bush has devoted much time or money to Massachusetts because Gore is perceived as having a lock on the state. In fact, neither candidate is currently spending any money on advertising here, the Democratic and Republican state parties confirmed Friday.

Meanwhile, the candidates are spending millions of dollars in ads in 22 other states where the outcome is likely to be closer.

Hannahan says voters in Massachusetts are missing out on valuable information because television advertisements allow candidates to describe their stances on specific issues, from Social Security to taxes.

By contrast, media coverage of the candidates focuses on the campaign itself -- where the candidates are traveling, whether their ads are having an effect, or what the latest polls say, Hannahan said.

Alan Schroeder, a Northeastern journalism professor and expert on media and presidential campaigns, said political TV ads are important simply because of their huge audience.

"This is America, we know how to watch television," Schroeder said.

Schroeder said 30- or 60-second television ads are useful because they often describe the candidate's stance on a single issue, in a format the viewer will easily remember.

But it's not as if Massachusetts residents saw no Gore and Bush ads this campaign season. Boston television stations carried plenty of ads before the New Hampshire primary on Feb. 1 because the stations' viewing areas include southern New Hampshire.

But since then, the three major Boston stations have received no advertising orders from either campaign, spokesmen for all three stations said Friday.

"No Bush, no Gore, nada," said Ro Dooley, a spokeswoman for WHDH-TV, the NBC affiliate.

Lisa Stewart, an investment consultant from Quincy, said even without the ads, she is getting more than enough presidential campaign coverage from television and other news sources.

"I feel inundated," Stewart said. "With cable and all the morning television shows, it's too much."

This year's presidential race -- the closest in 40 years -- has spurred a huge amount of spending on advertisements around the country, particularly in states that are considered still up for grabs.

Bush is spending about $8 million over eight days on TV ads this week, while Gore is spending slightly less.

One pro-Republican ad evoked strong criticism from the Gore campaign Friday. The ad, featuring a young girl plucking petals from a daisy, accused Gore and President Clinton of selling nuclear technology to China.

The ad closes with a close-up of the girl's face and a countdown to a nuclear blast.

Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson ran a similar ad in 1964, saying his opponent, Barry Goldwater, might lead the nation to nuclear war. The ad created such a negative reaction that it was pulled after only one showing.

Democrats called this week's ad a "desperate tactic" by conservative Republicans to help Bush.

Hannahan, the UMass professor, said the lack of Bush and Gore ads in Massachusetts is unlikely to affect the outcome here, since both candidates are well-known and Gore is so heavily favored here.

And there's a little-noticed advantage to the lack of presidential ads, said Chris Conway, 20, a mailroom worker at a downtown law firm.

"It frees up more time for the beer commercials," he said. "Those are always pretty good."