Your eyes and ears have not deceived you. By actual count, this is the dirtiest campaign season ever.

The Annenberg Political Fact Check, a project of the nonpartisan Annenberg Public Policy Center at factcheck.org, issued a report last week that found negative ads account for 80 percent of the political commercials on TV this season, up from 60 percent two years ago.

The biggest reason was ads by party committees. Since Labor Day, 91 percent of the ads from the National Republican Congressional Committee for House candidates have been negative, and 81 percent of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee ads have been negative, the report said.

The Republican committee has spent roughly eight times more on negative advertising than positive ads supporting its own candidates. The Democratic committee has spent five times more on negative ads than positive. Spending is up almost 20 percent from 2004.

The negative campaigning isn’t confined to television, either, largely because of the telephone tactic known as “push polling.”

Push polls disguise whisper campaigns as legitimate surveys, as in: “Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for So-and-So if you knew he supported free prescription drugs for illegal aliens” or “if he supported surrendering to terrorists.”

No wonder we don’t often hear the word “mudslinging” applied to political campaigns this fall. It would be redundant. It’s standard practice to accuse an opponent of consorting with terrorists, trampling on the flag, defaming the nation or wanting to let child molesters open day-care centers in churches.

Or of having supporters who are “radical,” “extreme,” “dangerous” or “bad for America.” Or of being out of touch with “our” values, whatever those are.

Judging from the ads, we value shrill hysteria. We live in a fantasy world ruled by fear and greed. We’re frightened and simple-minded. We like waving flags. We hate paying taxes.

It’s too bad that the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, better known as the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, applies only to campaigns for federal office.

Contrary to what a lot of people think, it’s not a gimmick or a trendy ad technique when a candidate says in an ad that he or she approved it. It’s a requirement of the McCain-Feingold law.

There were predictions this requirement would soften the tone of ads, making them more cautious and accurate. That didn’t happen, but it did add some accountability. This is useful – even, or especially, if you think the full tagline should be: “I’m So-and-So, and I approved this message. Am I nuts or what?”

The requirement doesn’t apply to candidates for local and state office, whose ads often boast of utterly irrelevant qualifications and make ridiculous promises about the problems they are single-handedly going to solve or clean up. When they’re not slagging their opponents.

Making state and local candidates take personal responsibility for their ads probably wouldn’t improve their quality.

It would, however, make each ad about five seconds shorter. Not much, but I’ll take it. They’re only getting worse.