1 Forthcoming in The Forum: A Journal of Applied Research on Contemporary Politics (Volume 10, Issue 4) Interest Groups in Electoral Politics: 2012 in Context Michael M. Franz Bowdoin College Department of Government and Legal Studies 9800 College Station Brunswick, ME 04011 www.bowdoin.edu/~mfranz [email protected]DRAFT: December 16, 2012 Abstract The paper uses data from the Wesleyan Media Project and the Wisconsin Advertising Project to compare the levels of ad spending from outside groups and traditional party organizations across seven federal election cycles. The data show clearly that outside groups advertised at historic levels in 2012. Such intense efforts send two important signals to students of American campaign finance. First, the system of limited donations to candidates and party committees faces a crisis moving forward, its efficacy and purpose challenged by huge investments from outside interests. The second lesson refers to the long debate in political science about whether parties or candidates should be the center of our electoral process. The debate is old, but it now risks irrelevancy as a collection of well-funded outside groups has asserted its role as the primary pivot point in many competitive election campaigns. The paper concludes with a consideration of possible reforms that might help restore parties and candidates to the center of issue debates in competitive federal elections. KEYWORDS: Citizens United, campaign advertising, interest groups Author Notes: Michael Franz is associate professor of government at Bowdoin College and co- director of the Wesleyan Media Project (WMP). His research interests include campaign finance, political advertising, and interest groups. He is author or co-author of four books, including The Persuasive Power of Campaign Advertising (Temple, 2011) and Choices and Changes: Interest Groups in the Electoral Process (Temple, 2008). He has published articles in the Journal of Politics, American Journal of Political Science, American Politics Research, and Political Communication. He especially thanks The John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, the Rockefeller Brothers Foundation, Wesleyan University and Wesleyan’s Quantitative Analysis Center for their support of this project. In addition, he thanks his two collaborators, Travis Ridout and Erika Franklin Fowler, and the WMP Project Manager, Laura Baum, along with the entire Media Project team across all three institutions.
48
Embed
Interest Groups in Electoral Politics: 2012 in Contextmediaproject.wesleyan.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/... · 2 “Interest Groups in Electoral Politics: 2012 in Context” Introduction
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
1
Forthcoming in The Forum: A Journal of Applied Research on Contemporary Politics (Volume 10, Issue 4)
Interest Groups in Electoral Politics: 2012 in Context
seven elections.2 It also uses Federal Election Commission reports since 1980 to demonstrate
the historic levels of such spending in 2012. The paper is organized as follows: it begins with a
brief review of recent changes in campaign finance laws that liberated interest groups to directly
advocate for or against candidates without restriction. Second, the paper discusses the levels of
spending by outside groups in the presidential primaries of early 2012. Third, it extends that
look into the general election phase, finding very high levels of ad spending by outside groups on
behalf of Mitt Romney and congressional candidates, levels that make the flirtation with 527s in
prior years seem quaint. Fourth, the paper speculates as to the effect of such spending on
election outcomes. Mitt Romney’s loss and the failure of Senate Republicans to capture control
of the chamber are perhaps sobering reminders of the limits of spending in elections. On the
other hand, it seems unlikely that groups will disengage in future cycles. Nor is it obvious that
the spending had no effect.
In late 2010, I compiled a review of interest group electioneering in the most recent
midterm elections—the first since the Supreme Court’s January 2010 decision in Citizens United
v. FEC 558 U.S. 310 (2010)—and found the share of spending on television ads to be high, but
lower than many might have expected.3 For one, as a share of all ads, outside spending in House
elections was lower in 2010 than in 2000.4 And interest group ads in Senate elections were
2 Ad data from both projects count ads aired on local broadcast stations (NBC, CBS, ABC, and
Fox affiliates) and national cable. Totals exclude ads aired on local cable stations. The number
of markets included in the data varies in each year but includes all 210 markets since 2008 (and
the 2004 presidential election).
3 Michael M. Franz. 2010. “The Citizens United Election? Or Same As It Ever Was? 2010. The
Forum: A Journal of Applied Research in Contemporary Politics. 4 On the other hand, interest groups more than doubled their share of ads compared to 2008 (6
percent to 13 percent).
4
stable in 2010 (15 percent of all ads that year) in comparison to their collective efforts in 2008
(14 percent), before the Court’s decision in Citizens United.
Moving forward in the wake of the 2010 campaign, one could reasonably doubt the long-
term damaging effect of Citizens United, though the paper did express concern at what unfettered
spending from groups would mean for traditional party organizations. As it turns out, 2010 was
more epilogue than prologue, a final point on years past when outside groups invested mightily
in close elections, but where doing so was still tainted by questions of its appropriateness. As
Rick Hasen notes
It is true that before Citizens United people could spend unlimited sums on
independent advertising directly supporting or opposing candidates. But that
money had to be spent by the individual directly…. [T]o avoid having your name
plastered across every ad [you could] give to the 527s, which claimed they could
take unlimited money from individuals (including, sometimes, corporate and
labor union money) …. These organizations were somewhat successful, but a
legal cloud always hung over them.5
To some extent, such concerns may have persisted into the fall of 2010. For example, 83 Super
PACs registered with the Federal Election Commission before the November 2010 elections, this
despite their initial sanction in the middle part of 2010. Prior to the 2012 campaign, in contrast,
nearly 1,300 such PACs had registered. Moreover, there were a number of important legal
developments in 2010 and 2011 that cleared away any legal clouds over what interest groups
5 “The Numbers Don’t Lie,” Slate, by Rick Hasen, 3/9/12:
Of course, the ability of outside groups to challenge incumbents and bolster the prospects
of long-shot challengers (as was the case with many Tea Party candidates in 2010) may be a
positive of the current system, but even here such challengers come largely to depend on the
hope that an organization bankrolled by wealthy investors comes to their defense. Indeed, such
candidates cannot solicit such help, nor plan for it. All told, in a regulatory framework with no
restrictions on outside independent spending, might it make sense to relax or rework the rules for
candidate and party committees?
The answer is yes, but the solutions run the gamut. For progressives, a matching program
on a similar scale of one for New York City elections is increasingly popular.41
The plan
incentives candidates to raise small contributions and facilitates fund-raising by making each
dollar translate into $4 or $6 (or whatever the match is set at). It also gains broader support
politically when it provides a “floor” that bolsters challengers but does not establish a “ceiling”
for total spending, the latter of which tends to advantage incumbents who have greater name
recognition. On the other hand, the plan also requires the commitment of tax dollars, which is
controversial, and it raises sensitive questions over how to set thresholds for qualification while
avoiding messy bureaucratic structures in the plan’s implementation.42
Another alternative for candidates or parties is to raise significantly any contribution
limits. This is in essence a move towards de-regulation of the larger system. While this might
incentivize donors to invest directly with candidates, and create more accountability with
voters—who could punish candidates backed by large donors—it also amounts to solving a drug
41
Michael J. Malbin, Peter W. Brusoe, and Brendan Glavin . 2012. “Small Donors, Big
Democracy: New York City’s Matching Funds as a Model for the Nation and States,” Election
Law Journal. 11(1): 3-20. 42
Peter Wallison and Joel Gora. 2009. Better Parties, Better Government: A Realistic Program
for Campaign Finance Reform. AEI Press, pp.63, 70, 72-73.
31
problem by distributing more drugs. The appearance of impropriety that concerns many in the
current system would only be amplified.43
If the answer is putting the power to direct campaigns
back in the hands of candidates or party committees, this solution (or a variant of it) might be
more attractive, however. At the very least, raising contribution limits to parties and allowing
parties and candidates to work together with fewer restrictions (coordination is strictly capped
currently) is a moderate reform that is probably worth adopting.
This particular point is worth some further discussion. One of the major threats in the
current system is the ability of outside groups to direct the narrative in a campaign. Because
voters were exposed to more pro-Romney ads from groups than they were from Romney
himself, this is no small problem. Matt Bai, in the same article cited earlier, makes this case
persuasively:
Back in the days of soft money, a [presidential] candidate had ownership of his
party’s national apparatus and the accusations it hurled on prime-time TV. He was
responsible for the integrity of his argument, and his advisers ultimately
controlled it. What the reform-minded architects of McCain-Feingold
inadvertently unleashed, what Citizens United intensified but by no means
43
Regarding the current system, there is a lot of misinformation in the public discourse about the
influence of donors on candidates. Lots of political science research fails to find direct links
between PAC donations and legislative voting, for example. See Stephen Ansolabehere, John
M. de Figueiredo, and James M. Snyder. 2003. "Why Is There So Little Money in Politics?"
Journal of Economic Perspectives 17(1): 105-130. But, also, there is a tendency to talk about
Wall Street donations or donations from certain industries, and to presume that such donations
are jointly directed. The Center for Responsive Politics aggregates contributions from
individuals by reported employer and industry, for example, and while this is helpful aggregate
information, it facilitates arguments about industry influence. In reality, no individual can give a
candidate more than $5,000 in a two-year election. Candidates might be influenced by such
dollars, or fund-raising help that comes from bundlers, but it is often less appreciated that
wealthy citizens have almost no means of leveraging that wealth in a candidate’s campaign
directly.
32
created, is a world in which a big part of the money in a presidential campaign is
spent by political entrepreneurs and strategists who are unanswerable to any
institution. Candidates and parties who become the vehicles of angry outsiders, as
Mitt Romney is now, don’t really have control of their own campaigns anymore;
to a large extent, they are the instruments of volatile forces beyond their own
reckoning.
It seems almost impossible to imagine any functional democratic theory of campaigns that would
empower outside groups while also ensnaring candidates and parties in a strictly limited fund-
raising paradigm.
If higher donor limits and easier coordination between parties and candidates is part of
the solution, any reform that exacerbates the cost for groups to advertise on television might also
be attractive. For example, consider a more aggressive lowest unit charge for candidates or even
free television time. Both would free up resources for other forms of campaigning, while still
allowing an affordable means of countering any messages from groups that do advertise.
Moreover, new disclosure laws should be central to any reform efforts. Super PACs
disclose donations to the FEC already, but 501c4 groups do not.44
Indeed, it does not seem
logical that shadow groups can be dominant players in competitive elections, often dominant
enough to drive the issue debates in such contests. One need not embrace the traditional party
organizations to understand that comparatively they are better for democracy than groups like
American Crossroads or Priorities USA. Traditional party organizations have long-standing
44
All is not rosy with Super PAC disclosure, however. They can claim 100 percent
transparency, while taking contributions from groups that do not disclose. Imagine the Center
for American Democracy PAC accepting and reporting a million dollar contribution from the
Center for American Democracy 501c4. This sort of money laundering allows the PAC to claim
fealty to the law, while also shielding public spotlight on its donor base.
33
reputations, are over 150 years old, and can claim the vast majority of voters as supporters. They
also have the obvious goal of winning control of government in line with a transparent political
philosophy, and they disclose all donations. In contrast, what exactly do groups like the Center
for Individual Freedom or Crossroads GPS want?
Does disclosure work, however? Does it have the effect of limiting the influence of large
donors, for example? This is a common counter-argument to calls for more disclosure.45
The
empirics, as they exist now, may not matter, however. Consider certain developments in
technology, such as the SuperPacApp and AdHawkApp, which allows voters to let their smart
phones access campaign finance data for different ad sponsors. Point your phone at the
television during an ad, and the app will identify any donor information available with the
Federal Election Commission. This gives voters more power to access information that is
otherwise somewhat complicated to find and understand. We simply do not know moving
forward how easy access to disclosure will empower citizens, and so it seems worth the
experiment.
A set of simplistic reforms, then, starts with empowering citizens with more information
to make good decisions and then turns that responsibility over to citizens. If voters are not
interested in who sponsors ads or funds a Super PAC, there may be little need to demand a
bigger change in campaign finance laws. If voters come to parse the information in a
campaign—throwing out messages from groups they do not recognize—the system might end up
returning to one dominated by candidate and party messages. One goal of policy-makers and
reformers should be to urge voters to do that parsing. Second, any reform should give candidates
45
David Primo and Jeffrey Milyo. 2006. “Campaign Finance Laws and Political Efficacy: Evidence
from the States,” Election Law Journal. 5(1): 23-39.
34
and parties more tools to raise money that can compete with the volume of outside spending.
Candidates and parties should be at the center of the campaign dialogue, not outside groups.
All of this is ultimately a question of democratic theory. Who should control the
messaging in our campaigns? Interested citizens that aggregate into active organizations should
not be discounted, of course, but campaigns dominated by wealthy investors with no disclosure
do not seem normatively ideal, either. Our elections currently face a crisis over enhancing and
preserving the free speech rights of citizens while also allowing candidates and party
organizations the space they need to make appeals to voters that break through the messaging
haze. No proposed solution is easy to implement, and there is no cure-all. But not addressing it
seriously is a cliff not of the fiscal sort, but of the democratic one.
35
Tables and Figures
Figure 1—Ads by Outside Groups in Presidential Primaries
Source: Wisconsin Advertising Project and Wesleyan Media Project
4.08%
14.46%
2.80%
59.13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
2000 2004 2008 2012
% o
f ad
s fr
om
Inte
rest
Gro
up
s
36
Table 1—Top Ad Spenders in 2012 GOP Primary Phase
Sponsor First aired Last aired Ads
Aired
Romney, Mitt 11/22/2011 4/22/2012 30,141
Perry, Rick 10/26/2011 1/20/2012 11,982
Paul, Ron 7/15/2011 4/24/2012 7,895
Gingrich, Newt 12/6/2011 3/13/2012 6,381
Santorum, Rick 1/10/2012 4/2/2012 6,330
Pawlenty, Tim 7/5/2011 8/10/2011 670
Bachmann, Michele 7/10/2011 1/3/2012 133
Terry, Randall 6/9/2011 2/21/2012 90
Huntsman, Jon 1/6/2012 1/9/2012 68
Martin, Andy 2/24/2011 12/9/2011 32
Karger, Fred 5/12/2011 2/27/2012 19
Cain, Herman 9/8/2011 9/8/2011 5
Roemer, Buddy 1/5/2012 1/7/2012 3
Total
63,749
Restore Our Future, Inc.* (Run By Former Romney Aides) 12/8/2011 4/24/2012 49,661
Crossroads GPS 6/27/2011 4/21/2012 18,006
Winning Our Future* (Run By Former Gingrich Aides) 12/28/2011 3/13/2012 11,558
Red, White, And Blue Fund* (Pro-Santorum) 12/15/2011 4/9/2012 11,471
Make Us Great Again* (Run By Former Perry Chief Of Staff) 11/1/2011 1/20/2012 6,465
Americans For Prosperity 7/29/2011 2/7/2012 7,115
American Energy Alliance 3/30/2012 4/13/2012 4,771
American Future Fund 1/24/2012 4/24/2012 3,083
Priorities USA Action* (Run By Former Obama Staffers) 5/20/2011 4/21/2012 2,447
Environmental Defense 4/3/2012 4/15/2012 1,606
American Petroleum Institute 1/12/2012 1/23/2012 1,493
Citizens For A Working America Pac* (Pro-Romney) 12/24/2011 1/21/2012 1,287
AFSCME 1/21/2012 3/10/2012 1,051
Our Destiny PAC* (Funded In Part By Huntsman Father) 11/15/2011 1/20/2012 810
Santa Rita Super PAC* (Founded By Ron Paul Fund-Raiser) 1/9/2012 1/21/2012 744
American Crossroads 10/3/2011 10/28/2011 401
NUMBERSUSA 12/19/2011 1/19/2012 282
Culinary Workers Union 2/29/2012 4/5/2012 213
American Jobs PAC 3/1/2012 3/3/2012 152
Leaders For Families Super PAC* (Pro-Santorum) 12/29/2011 1/3/2012 88
Total
122,704
GOP Super PAC total
82,084
*Indicates a Super PAC Bold indicates a pro or anti-Obama message Source: Wesleyan Media Project
37
Table 2—Party and Interest Group Ads in Presidential General Elections
Parties
Int. Grps
Pro-Dem
Pro- GOP Total
Pro-Dem
Pro-GOP Total
2000 of all ads 26.53% 39.24% 65.77% 6.80% 2.07% 8.87%
within pty 54.76% 76.12%
14.04% 4.02%
2004 of all ads 19.14% 15.06% 34.20% 15.45% 3.92% 19.37%
within pty 32.28% 38.03%
26.04% 9.91%
2008 of all ads 1.00% 22.62% 23.62% 2.14% 1.95% 4.09%
within pty 1.81% 52.72%
3.89% 4.54%
2012 of all ads 0.59% 5.66% 6.25% 6.13% 24.92% 31.05%
within pty 1.14% 11.73%
11.86% 51.61% Totals are for top 75 markets in 2000, and all markets in 2004-2012
Ads are for general election periods as described in text Party totals include coordinated and independent expenditures Source: Wisconsin Advertising Project and Wesleyan Media Project
38
Table 3—Top 25 Sponsors of Ads in Presidential General Election
Sponsor Est. Cost Ads aired Affiliation
Obama, Barack $306,507,580 550,170 DEM
Romney, Mitt $127,530,040 215,510 REP
American Crossroads* $81,212,060 81,594 REP
Crossroads GPS $48,213,030 72,913 REP
Restore Our Future, Inc.* $79,030,550 67,996 REP
Priorities USA Action* $40,540,970 63,376 DEM
Americans For Prosperity $38,169,250 44,108 REP
Republican National Committee $25,054,890 35,822 REP
RNC & Romney, Mitt $24,789,190 33,466 REP
Americans For Job Security $14,019,060 10,410 REP
American Future Fund $11,427,530 10,391 REP
DNC & Obama, Barack $15,309,090 7,210 DEM
Republican Jewish Coalition $5,408,920 3,422 REP
Planned Parenthood Action Fund $3,391,650 3,159 DEM
Concerned Women For America $4,400,360 3,132 REP
NRA Political Victory Fund $3,019,040 3,108 REP
SEIU & Priorities USA* $1,194,420 2,010 DEM
SEIU COPE $1,595,230 1,710 DEM
Ending Spending Fund* $3,127,830 1,446 REP
Peterffy, Thomas $2,572,310 1,102 REP
Priorities USA Action* & LCV Victory Fund $532,710 1,080 DEM
Checks And Balances For Economic Growth $896,290 981 REP
60 Plus Association $1,209,250 873 REP
Special Ops OPSEC Education Fund $553,640 850 REP
People For The American Way $664,750 829 DEM
Total $840,369,640 1,216,668 *Super PAC
Source: Wesleyan Media Project
39
Figure 2—Interest Group and Party Ads in House Races
Source: Wisconsin Advertising Project and Wesleyan Media Project
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012
% o
f ad
s fr
om
Parties Int. Groups
40
Figure 3—Interest Group and Party Ads in Senate Races
Source: Wisconsin Advertising Project and Wesleyan Media Project
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012
% o
f ad
s fr
om
Parties Int Groups
41
Table 4—Top 25 Sponsors of Ads in House and Senate (9/1 to Election Day)
Sponsor Est. Cost Ads Affiliation # House
races # Senate
races
Crossroads GPS $34,070,720 46,841 REP 13 9
Majority PAC* $15,252,970 20,168 DEM 0 13
House Majority PAC* $22,348,510 19,458 DEM 44 0
U.S. Chamber Of Commerce $16,204,390 15,291 REP 17 11
American Crossroads* $9,644,670 11,159 REP 0 5
Americans For Tax Reform $7,668,420 10,599 REP 10 0
League Of Conservation Voters $2,791,460 2,634 DEM 2 2
Center For Individual Freedom $1,834,250 2,576 REP 6 0
National Federation Of Ind. Bus. $1,986,330 2,514 REP 3 2
Women Vote $1,499,950 2,403 DEM 1 4
End The Gridlock* $1,289,470 2,252 DEM 0 1
Freedom PAC $1,793,900 2,220 REP 0 1
American Hospital Association $1,011,130 2,015 REP 7 0
Independence USA PAC $6,761,020 2,530 DEM/GOP 5 0
60 Plus Association $1,000,540 1,724 REP 3 4
Total $179,004,940 191,035
Pro-Dem total $70,463,300 70,597 Pro-GOP total $108,541,640 117,908
*Super PAC Source: Wesleyan Media Project
42
Table 5—Top 20 House and Senate Races (9/1 to Election Day)
House Dem ads
GOP ads
Group %
GA12 14,161 7,632 21.10%
IL17 7,613 8,162 24.30%
CA24 6,791 8,670 19.12%
NY21 6,866 6,854 22.26%
CA52 6,372 6,620 22.82%
CA36 7,425 5,275 14.47%
NY27 7,873 3,729 22.35%
PA12 5,120 6,444 27.29%
UT04 6,497 4,883 27.01%
NY24 5,538 5,289 20.73%
KY06 5,288 4,994 12.08%
FL18 4,034 5,973 29.57%
IL13 4,790 5,294 19.90%
TX23 5,300 4,093 37.80%
CO03 4,320 4,818 16.47%
IA03 4,371 4,760 25.48%
MN08 5,580 3,383 29.20%
AZ01 4,731 4,220 14.04%
OH06 4,642 3,846 24.33%
NY19 3,873 4,671 14.93%
Senate MT 32,809 39,331 23.35%
WI 27,638 22,223 31.31%
IN 18,222 22,963 41.80%
OH 18,858 22,013 30.34%
VA 21,608 17,778 35.14%
MA 14,133 20,906 0.00%
NV 16,808 17,360 28.33%
FL 19,644 9,018 24.64%
AZ 15,486 11,602 21.15%
PA 9,018 15,838 4.67%
MO 19,027 3,668 13.32%
ND 11,760 10,608 30.78%
NM 7,290 8,687 18.03%
NE 7,561 8,102 31.09%
CT 6,015 9,302 9.96%
ME 3,225 6,985 33.94%
MI 10,129 2,066 3.70%
NY 8,815 778 8.11%
HI 4,635 3,266 27.01%
Source: Wesleyan Media Project
43
Figure 4—Independent Expenditures and Electioneering Communication Totals
Source: Federal Election Commission
$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
Ind Exp from outsidegroups (1980-2010)
ElecCommunications
(2004-2010)
Combined Ind Exp and ElecComm 2012
Mill
ion
s
44
Figure 5—Party to Interest Group Spending, 1980-2012
Source: Federal Election Commission and data cited in the Appendix
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
131
98
0
19
82
19
84
19
86
19
88
19
90
19
92
19
94
19
96
19
98
20
00
20
02
20
04
20
06
20
08
20
10
20
12
Rat
io o
f P
arty
sp
en
din
g to
Gro
up
sp
en
din
g
Prez election years Midterms Prez election (all soft)
45
Figure 6—Obama and Romney Ads, Excluding Interest Groups
Source: Wesleyan Media Project
y = 0.5284x - 63.907
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Pro
-Ro
mn
ey
ads
(no
gro
up
ad
s)
Tho
usa
nd
s
Pro-Obama ads (no group ads)
Thousands
46
Figure 7—Obama and Romney Ads, Including Interest Groups
Source: Wesleyan Media Project
y = 0.8241x + 451.29
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Pro
-Ro
mn
ey
ads
Tho
usa
nd
s
Pro-Obama ads
Thousands
47
Table 6—Estimated Effect of Ads at the County-level
Effect of 1000 ads on Democratic county votes*
all general post-August post-September
2004 0.197% 0.381% 0.846%
2008 0.549 0.600 0.880
2012 0.124 0.332 0.371
Effect of 2SD shift in ads
2004 0.725 0.523 0.754
2008 1.493 1.362 1.320
2012 0.506 0.768 0.516
Effect across full range of measure
2004 2.488 2.812 3.668
2008 6.047 4.840 4.624
2012 1.731 2.685 2.016
*All effects significant at p<.05 From models of counties in non-battleground states. Control variables are not shown. Dep. Var is Democratic candidate improvement over previous election in the county
Data for all columns but the last one come from FEC reports. IG “Issue ads” in 1998-2002 are from the Wisconsin Advertising Project, and so include only estimated television ad
expenditures. The 1996 total comes from Deborah Beck, et al., “Issue Advocacy Advertising During the 1996 Campaign,” Report on a grant funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts,
(Philadelphia, PA: Annenberg Public Policy Center, 1997).