Bill Bradley has declined time and again, but the vice president presses on. "I know that you have said no, but as they say on that `Millionaire' show: Is that your final answer?" Gore asked in a weekend debate.

You can say plenty in 30 seconds, Bradley responded, "if you know what you believe."

So who's right? Would scrapping television ads for more debates lead to a more informed electorate?

Ads may get a bad rap, but they actually do more good than harm, say the professionals who study them. Furthermore, debates aren't as substantive as some would like to believe.

"You'll notice moderators keep saying to give short answers. The debates, although we like to imagine they're better, aren't that much better," said Bill Benoit, a communication professor at the University of Missouri who has studied every political ad and presidential debate since the 1950s.

Besides, he said, "hardly anyone watches these debates."

TV commercials, by contrast, reach many more people, showing up whether a viewer is thinking about politics or not.

"The American people collectively know so little about politics, the last thing we ought to do is shut off any channel of communication between the candidates and the voters," said Larry Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia.

Critics say the brief ads often smack of manipulation and fluff. They also come to viewers unfiltered, with no one to point out when a candidate is shading the truth.

Many news organizations, including The Associated Press, offer "ad watches" in which claims are analyzed for accuracy. That helps keep the ads honest, Benoit said in a telephone interview. Meanwhile, he said, when a candidate gives a speech filled with policy ideas, many reporters focus on the strategy and the horse race, not the substance.

Over the years, ads have become more substantive, dealing more with policy than with personality, Benoit said. "TV spots are really important, and even though they're short, voters learn from them."

But Gore, figuring he has seized on a winning issue, has issued his challenge repeatedly.

Advisers patterned the no-ad offer on one made in 1998 by Democrat John Edwards, who upset Republican Sen. Lauch Faircloth in North Carolina. Edwards proposed scrapping ads; Faircloth declined. Bob Shrum, who advised Edwards, brought the idea to Gore.

The challenge made sense for Gore on several levels. While Bradley champions an overhaul of campaign finance, the no-ad offer promotes Gore's own reformer image. And as the vice president, he's already well known nationally, whereas Bradley needs ads to spread his name.

In recent days, Gore has revised his offer, saying he'd drop ads in just a single state such as New Hampshire, where Bradley is already well known. The former New Jersey senator again declined.

"Candidates (are) going out and telling people what they believe," Bradley said in their Saturday debate. "And in 30 seconds you can say a lot."

So what about this year's crop of ads. Are they substantive, or misleading?

In one ad, running now in Iowa, Bradley talks about education, telling viewers the following facts: He went to a public high school and graduated in 1961. He had terrific teachers. Today's teachers need new skills. He has a plan to recruit 60,000 new teachers a year for 10 years.

With pictures of his high school on the screen, this ad is meant to evoke a feeling as much as impart information. It's meant to say that Bradley cares about education, just like the voters.

It doesn't directly address Gore's accusation that Bradley lacks a comprehensive plan for education and doesn't mention that hiring 60,000 teachers would cost $1.3 billion a year.

Gore's own education ad is more specific. He's for universal pre-school, smaller classes, higher standards, teacher training and connecting every classroom to the Internet. It notes that he's been endorsed by two teachers' unions.

It also neglects to mention the cost of his plan -- $115 billion over 10 years.

On the whole, though, these and other ads still gives voters useful information, academics say.

Sabato said he used to be quite critical of campaign ads until a political consultant made him think about the power of a few short sentences: "I declare war," for instance, or "I love you."

"Those are among most powerful things that a human being can utter," he said. "If you do have something to say, you can make the point quickly and in a memorable fashion."