In Defense of Obsessive Coverage of Outside Group Spending

By
Wednesday, October 27, 2010 at 9:23 am

Democrats have raised more money than Republicans, as stories in both The New York Times and Politico point out today. It’s no secret among those tracking political spending, but the news could come as a surprise to some readers who have closely followed the coverage of reporters (including yours truly) of the rise of outside groups making large independent expenditures in the midterm elections. I’ve taken pains to note, when appropriate, that while GOP-leaning outside groups are outspending Democrat-leaning groups by as much as 6 to 1, those margins are merely offsetting the big advantage Democrats hold this year when it comes to traditional candidate and party fundraising.

But coming up with overall spending totals is not an easy or foolproof task. Individual candidate reports (which track the kind of fundraising that Democrats are leading in) only cover their efforts through mid-October, notes the Times, while issue advertisements (which Republican-backing groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are spending loads of money on) only have to be reported to the Federal Election Commission in the last 60 days before an election.

Regardless, outside spending is still worth focusing on for a number of reasons. For one, it is new money — not just in the sense that it is a new phenomenon (though it is, in part), but in the sense that much of it can be considered additional to the money that traditionally flows into campaigns. That’s because Section 501(c) nonprofits and Super PACs have become outlets for wealthy donors and corporations whose contributions would in the past have been capped at $2,400 per candidate and $30,400 for the national parties. In other words, the $7 million donated by homebuilder Bob Perry to the conservative group American Crossroads to advocate directly on behalf of federal candidates would not have been money spent in a previous election cycle.

Second, the money spent by outside groups hasn’t been spread out evenly. It’s not surprising that in a year when Democrats dominate both chambers of Congress, their individual candidates would collectively raise more money than their relatively unknown Republican challengers. Yet when it comes to key contests, outside interest groups have been able to pour money into races at an unheard-of pace, spending nearly $25 million in the Senate race in Colorado and $17.5 million in the one in Pennsylvania, for instance.

This kind of spending has almost invariably favored Republicans, and it’s even more pronounced in a number of House races, where a few hundred thousand dollars can make a big difference:

For instance, the war on the airwaves in the district of embattled Democratic freshman Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick in Arizona is essentially between Kirkpatrick and three outside groups who have spent a combined $1.4 million attacking her. Her opponent, Paul Gosar, has only put up $200,000 worth of ads.

“Fact-checking our opponent is a full-time job, but we’ve spent even more time fact-checking his special interest backers,” said Carmen Gallus, Kirkpatrick’s campaign manager. “These outside groups are not being held accountable for coming in and lying to the folks in our district.”

Follow Jesse Zwick on Twitter


Comments

12 Comments

Tweets that mention In Defense of Obsessive Coverage of Outside Group Spending « The Washington Independent -- Topsy.com
Pingback posted October 27, 2010 @ 9:58 am

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Jesse Zwick, WashIndependent. WashIndependent said: In Defense of Obsessive Coverage of Outside Group Spending http://bit.ly/9Vvmnu [...]


In Defense of Obsessive Coverage of Outside Group Spending « The … | Silcon Group
Pingback posted October 27, 2010 @ 10:47 am

[...] Read the original post:  In Defense of Obsessive Coverage of Outside Group Spending « The … [...]


Opportunities business|home business internet|business at home|starting small business| » Blog Archive » State House District 35 candidates talk issues
Pingback posted October 27, 2010 @ 5:55 pm

[...] In Defense of Obsessive Coverage of Outside Group Spending « The Washington Independent [...]


Great brunette 3D girlfriend Marta posing naked for you outside | Naughty Animation Thinking
Pingback posted October 27, 2010 @ 8:52 pm

[...] In Defense of Obsessive Coverage of Outside Group Spending « The … [...]


youmustbejoking
Comment posted October 27, 2010 @ 9:10 pm

If all the money being spend on politics these past months was put instead to reducing the deficit or providing for the ever increasing families left homeless and without jobs, we could effect real change in this country. What a shameful waste that we allow this kind of money to influence us into voting one side or the other. If this isn't a call to have real campaign reform in this country, there will never be a such a call. What a waste. Businesses can't create jobs but they can spend millions trying to buy your vote. We citizens and voters need to unite and insist that this end


Breaking election controversies: A guide
Pingback posted October 28, 2010 @ 2:21 am

[...] in campaign level spending.” But outside spending “is still worth focusing on,” says Jesse Zwick at the Washington Independent. Not only is it a “new phenomenon,” but it “almost invariably” favors [...]


The Media Consortium » Campaign Cash: Sen. Jim DeMint’s Making a Mint with Corporate Cash
Pingback posted October 28, 2010 @ 10:27 am

[...] been much debate over who really comes out on top thanks to the post-Citizens United rules, Jesse Zwick notes for The Washington Independent, these stories are only talking about direct campaign contributions. Some might argue that [...]


DeMint makes a mint with corporate cash | reportergary.com
Pingback posted October 28, 2010 @ 10:45 am

[...] been much debate over who really comes out on top thanks to the post-Citizens United rules, Jesse Zwick notes for The Washington Independent, these stories are only talking about direct campaign contributions. Some might argue that [...]


Campaign Cash: Sen. Jim DeMint’s Making a Mint with Corporate Cash « SpeakEasy
Pingback posted October 28, 2010 @ 10:48 am

[...] been much debate over who really comes out on top thanks to the post-Citizens United rules, Jesse Zwick notes for The Washington Independent, these stories are only talking about direct campaign contributions. Some might argue that [...]


Campaign Cash: Sen. Jim DeMint’s Making a Mint with Corporate Cash | The UpTake
Pingback posted October 28, 2010 @ 11:19 am

[...] been much debate over who really comes out on top thanks to the post-Citizens United rules, Jesse Zwick notes for The Washington Independent, these stories are only talking about direct campaign contributions. Some might argue that [...]


State rep candidates to Marblehead r? to join in? fighting of the campaign | MATCH DATING ONLINE ON HERE
Pingback posted November 4, 2010 @ 10:42 pm

[...] In Defense of Obsessive Coverage of Outside Group Spending « The … Bookmark It Hide Sites [...]


4807847
Comment posted September 7, 2011 @ 12:35 pm

4807847 beers on the wall. sck was here


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.