Even though candidates have cried foul and voters around the country have expressed disgust about the barrage of negative advertisements monopolizing the airwaves this cycle, there’s little the federal government can do to control or regulate the content of the spots.

“There is no federal agency that [monitors] truth in political advertising,” said Brooks Jackson, director of Annenberg Political Fact Check. “People are always kind of surprised to hear that.”

Jackson said it is largely up to news organizations and voters to educate themselves about whether a candidate is being truthful in an ad.

Gary Kalman, a democracy advocate for U.S. PIRG, echoed Jackson’s assessment and added that courts are sometimes reluctant to punish public officials for running potentially false information in their advertisements because of the laws protecting political speech.

Spokesmen for the Federal Elections Commission (FEC), Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Federal Communications Commission (FCC) confirmed that they have virtually no role in monitoring the content of political advertisements.

The FEC has no jurisdiction over the content of negative political ads unless there is a problem with how they are financed.

“We are concerned with who is paying for the ad,” said FEC spokeswoman Michelle Ryan.

“Unless there is indecent or obscene material in the ad, the FCC has no jurisdiction over the content,” said FCC spokeswoman Rebecca Fisher.

A spokeswoman for the Federal Trade Commission confirmed they too have no authority over the content of ads.

The FTC did not comment further as to why the “truth in advertising” part of the law, which falls under FTC jurisdiction, is not applicable to political speech.

Paul Beck, a political science professor at Ohio State University who has studied the effect of media on the electorate, said he has never seen the volume of misrepresentative ads that he has seen so far this year.

“I’ve never seen a worse year for it,” Beck said. “Incumbents have really felt like they needed to attack the challengers.”

The spate of negative ads, he added, could depress turnout throughout the country.

“I think voters are tired of it,” Beck said. “They could decide to sit it out.”

“This has been one of the dirtiest campaigns in recent years.  Not only are the ads unusually negative, they are extremely personal in how they attack the opposition,” said Darrell West, director of the Taubman Center for Public Policy at Brown University. “Candidates turn to negative ads when they are desperate … If you are behind in the polls, it is time for a Hail Mary pass and that is what some of these attacks ads are doing.”

Many of the attack ads this cycle “oversimplify” the highlighted issues, Beck said. Specifically, he cites an attack on Sen. Mike DeWine (R-Ohio) for not attending meetings of the Intelligence Committee that misrepresents how often members of Congress miss meetings of their various committees in which they are not involved.

Massie Ritsch, a spokesman for the Center for Responsive Politics, said that data from the group’s website, opensecrets.com, is frequently manipulated in political ads.

“We often find that the ads are technically accurate but leave out the context,” he said, adding that the practice is particularly rampant in ads linking candidates with disgraced Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

“The ads will say that the candidate received [funds] from Jack Abramoff but most of the money will have come from one of his clients,” Ritsch said. “The message is that this crooked lobbyist bought off your member of congress.”

Broadcasting organizations also find their hands legally tied during campaign season.

“If it’s a federal candidate, stations have to offer a guaranteed right of television [time] — they are barred from censoring any of those spots,” said Dennis Wharton, a spokesman for the National Association of Broadcasters.

Wharton said stations are permitted to work with a candidate to “tweak” the ad if viewers find it extremely controversial, noting that ads from third-party entities, such as independent expenditure groups, can be struck from the airwaves.

Despite the complaints, Jackson said given the choice, most people wouldn’t want federal regulation of ad content.

“You wouldn’t want it because then some federal agent would be able to decide what the truth is,” he said. “It’s up to news organizations and the voters to find it out … nobody said democracy was easy.”

Patrick O’Connor contributed to this report.