What is the inherent problem with electing knowledgeable public officials?

I am going on a hunger strike until the FCC removes the insulting ads from TV. The pharmaceutical ads can be summed up in a few words - the drug being advertised might help you, but the side effects may kill you. I understand that the ad language must have legal disclaimers that count as disclosure, which frankly are an acrimonious assault on my senses. e.g. The drug does cause suicidal tendencies in rare cases. e.g. Do not take the drug if you are allergic to it. How can anyone look at one of these ads and not see the humor? But to me, it is insulting. And it must create fascinating legal discussions when the ads are being reviewed. What the ad agencies create, the legal disclaimers destroy. Or do they?

But that is not all. There is a whole category of ad language that causes me to throw my socks at the TV. The category is the "better than or faster than" percentage ad. This product is 10 times better. It is 3 times more effective. It has 90% better coverage. Save up to 20% and buy now. It works 10% faster. We will sell this car for 10% less than what we pay for it. And to ad insult to injury, often these ads are accompanied by a colorful bar graph illustrating the claimed percentage saving. So it must be accurate because the blue bar is bigger than the red bar on the graph. And so on.

Now here is the rub. These ads are typically shown to focus groups to see if people believe the ad? People believe them and then the ad is run.

Doesn't this explain the inherent problem with electing knowledgeable public officials?