If you grew to detest the 2010 TV ads sponsored anonymously by outside political money, get ready for worse: the noxious campaigns are on the verge of becoming perpetual and infinitely more expensive.
Democrats are already rearming for the big-money battlefield they fled in 2008, relocating the liberal millionaires abandoned when President Barack Obama expressed distaste for the practice.
Pennsylvanians, exhausted by the only Senate and House races that brought in more outside TV spending than Colorado, are now stunned to see ongoing ads warning about cap and trade or health care bills — part of a new “perpetual campaign” fueled by bottomless business donors.
And the biggest 2010 spenders appear pleased with their work: Republicans won in many races where special- interest money flooded the zone; in the rare instances where Democrats prevailed, including Sen. Michael Bennet in Colorado, targeted infusions of outside money also made a difference.
“It’s likely that these outside groups will only become savvier, and their spending will only become greater in 2012 and beyond,” said Liz Bartolomeo of the tracking group The Sunlight Foundation. The emptying of deep pockets resulted in roughly $4 billion in spending on this year’s elections, or $45 on every American who voted.
“It’s getting harder and harder for elected officials to maintain any kind of connection with average voters when they are chasing money all the time,” said Charlie Cook, editor of the nonpartisan Cook’s Political Report.
“I’m encouraged that the biggest money doesn’t always win,” he said, “but the biggest money does win more often than not.”
Outside groups spent $293 million nationally this year (compared with $68.9 million in 2006), just under the $302 million spent in the traditionally much-more-expensive presidential year of 2008, according to Open Secrets.
The Sunlight Foundation said all outside spending for Colorado added up to $42.6 million, with much of that for the Senate seat but millions for contested House seats as well.
Outside groups weren’t the only big spenders this cycle.
Millionaires who spent fortunes backing their own prospects saw mixed results, with Republican Meg Whitman’s $143 million — a record for self-spending — not quite closing the lease on the California governor’s mansion, while Republican Rick Scott’s $75 million was enough to land that job in Florida.
Watchdogs, and no doubt the donors themselves, are counting up wins and losses. But reform advocates fear the assessment in most races will be that more money next time will translate to more wins.
The Republican-dominated American Crossroads PAC, which has already vowed to raise more money for 2012, spent money in 43 races, according to Sunlight, winning in 28. The losses included $5.9 million spent for Ken Buck and against Bennet.
The labor unions AFSCME (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees) and SEIU (Service Employees International Union) spent about $20 million; AFSCME’s picks won about half the time, but the SEIU candidates won only 13 of 41 federal races where it spent money, Sunlight said.
Republicans are convinced big spending helped pick up key Senate victories in states like Florida, Kentucky and Wisconsin. Closer to home, they are also convinced that a late Democratic surge of money protected Bennet’s Colorado seat, buying ads targeting undecided women in the suburbs.
Democrats tell themselves they fell behind in outside money for other races because Obama declined the help of big, special-interest donors in 2008. They are now vowing to catch up for 2012.
“It’s clearer than ever that we need new disclosure for the sources of this kind of campaign spending,” said Sunlight’s Bartolomeo.
Society-changing trend
Former U.S. Sen. Tim Wirth is certain the technology revolution in the Internet, cable and fiber optics would never have happened if the uncontrolled flood of political money had washed over Congress in the 1980s.
Big telecom monopolies would now come “armed with huge treasuries dedicated to burying change and to squashing their policy opponents,” said Wirth, a former Colorado Democrat who now leads the U.N. Foundation. The Democrat and Republican coalition that opened the telecom boom couldn’t possibly “survive the weight of the negative money that would be thrown against it” today, Wirth said.
Like Colorado, Pennsylvania hosted a convergence of races in the Senate and U.S. House that bombarded TV viewers with constantly bickering ads. It was the only state that saw more outside money poured in than Colorado.
Wilkes University political science professor Tom Baldino watched outside-money TV ads attack incumbents in eastern Pennsylvania and soften them up “like Omaha Beach.”
It’s easier for outside groups to create the roughest and most misleading ads, because they are not accountable to local leaders or shamed by bad publicity, Baldino said.
Scranton-area residents are now seeing generic attack ads warning against global-warming legislation and looser labor laws, Baldino said. Groups seeking to keep 501(c) tax-exempt status are required to show spending on “education” besides elections, so they will likely increase off-year ads informing voters about legislation and issues, he said.
But few think Congress will stop the spending blaze. Republicans oppose new campaign finance reforms and now control the House, while disheartened Democrats rarely raise the issue.
Reforms currently in limbo, such as the Disclose Act, will fade, said Bowdoin College political science professor Michael Franz, who studies campaign finances. “This will just get thrown on the back burner in the next few weeks as the lame-duck Congress tries to figure out what to do about tax cuts.”
“The rules are what they are, so I’m glad we’re fighting back, but that doesn’t mean I have to like those rules,” said Colorado GOP chairman Dick Wadhams, who said conservative groups only this year caught up with union and liberal donor spending. “No tinkering is going to make it any better.”
Wadhams favors a massive reform, which would focus on disclosure instead of limiting contributions.
Amounts vs. sources
Political spending may seem in wild flux at the moment, but the amounts haven’t changed so much as the source of all the spending, argues University of Missouri social scientist Jeff Milyo. He studies economics and politics, and charts spending from year to year. Before the McCain-Feingold limits of 2002, more “soft” political money from interest groups went straight to parties.
“Soft money was just under $500 million in the 2002 midterms,” Milyo said, while he estimates the final “outside” spending equivalent in 2010 will be about $465 million.”
There’s no scientific evidence yet that outside spending has a big impact on turnout or outcomes, he said.
While Democrats maintain it was their get out the vote effort that made the most difference for Bennet in Colorado, they’re not apologizing for outside money beyond their control. After all, it was Democratic millionaires from Colorado who began large donations in 2004 to sway local elections, catching Republicans off guard.
“When you’re faced with the kind of onslaught we were faced with from Karl Rove, I’m not sure I would have given anything up” this year, said state Democratic chair Pat Waak. Rove’s Crossroads and Crossroads GPS were two of the major outside groups supporting Republicans around the nation.
While Colorado’s Senate race topped the charts in outside spending, national totals of outside spending further moved the decimals. Groups with anonymous donors spent $126 million of the national money this year, Sunlight Foundation said.
Republicans dominated the anonymous spending. Sunlight attributed $59 million in national undisclosed spending to Republicans, and $10 million to Democrats.
Andrew Romanoff made campaign spending a prime argument in his unsuccessful primary effort against Bennet. He likes to say “supply-side solutions are less effective than demand side.” It’s hard to limit donations, Romanoff explained, but public financing of campaigns would make TV ad prices equal to all and level the field.
More disclosure is key too, said Romanoff, including a listing of donors on the ads themselves. “There should be a Surgeon General’s warning,” he said.
Michael Booth: 303-954-1686 or mbooth@denverpost.com
