Brookings: Topics - Campaign Finance

Political Voice and American Democracy: Unequal and Undemocratic

Wed, 12 Sep 2012 13:30:00 -0400

Event Information

September 12, 2012
1:30 PM - 3:00 PM EDT

Saul/Zilkha Rooms
Brookings Institution
1775 Massachusetts Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20036

Register for the Event
The role of money and special interests in American democracy is a perennial topic, even more so during an election year. And this year, with super PACs playing a role for the first time, the debate over whether the wealthy and well-connected have undue influence in our election process has reached fever pitch. Is there evidence that those with more money have a louder political voice? Or that special interests are drowning out individual citizens?

On September 12, Brookings Senior Fellow William Galston will moderate a discussion of The Unheavenly Chorus: Unequal Political Voice and the Broken Promise of American Democracy (Princeton University Press, April 2012), by Kay Lehman Schlozman, Sidney Verba and Henry E. Brady. Using the largest interest group database ever compiled, the authors document dramatic inequalities among citizens in the ability to influence politics and policy. The extent of these differences raises troubling questions about the condition of American democracy. After presenting their arguments and evidence, the authors will respond to questions from the audience.

This event is part of the “Governing Ideas” series intended to broaden the discussion of governance issues through forums on timely and relevant books on history, culture, legal norms and practices, values and religion.

New Ways of Evaluating Campaign Ads

Mon, 23 Jul 2012 13:00:00 -0400

Event Information

July 23, 2012
1:00 PM - 2:30 PM EDT

Falk Auditorium
Brookings Institution
1775 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036

The 2012 elections are already featuring a broad array of candidate, party, and Super PAC advertising, as well as a large mix of campaign messages and tones. But how effective are these ads proving? What do they convey about the candidates and issues, and are they successful in getting messages across? Is the current crop of ads fair or misleading? And in the era of Super PAC dollars, how much impact will campaign advertising and messaging have in the 2012 election cycle?

On July 23, the Governance Studies program at Brookings hosted a discussion on the efficacy of the new wave of campaign advertising. Researchers with Vanderbilt University and YouGov’s Ad Rating Project presented new data examining voter responses to current presidential campaign ads and discussed how this survey approach can inform civic debate and voter decision-making. The Ad Rating Project measures reactions of a nationally representative sample of voters, offering a new and systematic way to assess ads during the presidential campaign.

Audio

New Ways of Evaluating Campaign Ads

Transcript

Uncorrected Transcript (.pdf)

Event Materials

20120723_campaign_ads

@Brookings Podcast: The Influence of Super PACs on the 2012 Elections

Anthony Corrado — Fri, 09 Mar 2012 16:20:00 -0500

Super PACs have already spent tens of millions of dollars in the race for the GOP presidential nomination, with more to come. Expert Anthony Corrado says that the unlimited spending by the PACs, made possible by two Supreme Court decisions, is giving wealthy individuals unprecedented influence in the 2012 elections.

previous play pause next

mute unmute

@Brookings Podcast: The Influence of Super PACs on the 2012 Elections 07:10

Right-click (ctl+click for Mac) on 'Download' and select 'save link as..'

Get Code

Copy and paste the embed code above to your website or blog.

Video

The Influence of Super PACs on the 2012 Elections

Audio

@Brookings Podcast: The Influence of Super PACs on the 2012 Elections

Image Source: © Jessica Rinaldi / Reuters

Campaign Finance in the 2012 Elections: The Rise of Super PACs

Thu, 01 Mar 2012 09:30:00 -0500

Event Information

March 1, 2012
9:30 AM - 11:00 AM EST

Saul/Zilkha Rooms
The Brookings Institution
1775 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036

From “American Crossroads” to “Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow,” so-called "super PACs" have emerged as the dominant new force in campaign finance. Created in the aftermath of two landmark court decisions and regulatory action and inaction by the Federal Election Commission (FEC), these independent spending-only political action committees are collecting unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations and unions to advocate for or against political candidates. The legal requirements they face—disclosure of donors and non-coordination with the candidates and campaigns they are supporting—have proven embarrassingly porous. Increasingly, super PACs are being formed to boost a single candidate and are often organized and funded by that candidate’s close friends, relatives and former staff members. Their presence is most visible in presidential elections but they are quickly moving to Senate and House elections.

On March 1, on the heels of the FEC’s February filing deadline, the Governance Studies program at Brookings hosted a discussion exploring the role of super PACs in the broader campaign finance landscape this election season. Anthony Corrado, professor of government at Colby College and a leading authority on campaign finance, and Trevor Potter, nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, a former chairman of the FEC and lawyer to Comedy Central’s Stephen Colbert, presented.

After the panel discussion, the speakers took audience questions. Participants joined the discussion on Twitter by using the hashtag #BISuperPAC.

Video

Audio

Campaign Finance in the 2012 Elections: The Rise of Super PACs

Transcript

Uncorrected Transcript (.pdf)

Event Materials

20120301_super_pacs

Participants

Panelists

Anthony Corrado

Nonresident Senior Fellow, Governance Studies
Professor of Government, Colby College

Obama and Super PACs in the 2012 Election

Thomas E. Mann — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 17:27:00 -0500

The announcement from President Obama’s reelection committee that the president would no longer discourage supporters from contributing to independent spending only political action committees (super PACs) is a reversal of his position in this election cycle and conflicts with the practice he followed with respect to independent spending in the 2008 campaign. His willingness to live with and even encourage super PACs working on his behalf and that of his party also contrasts starkly with the strong stand he has taken against Citizens United and the explosion of activities by these new campaign entities to raise super-sized contributions from wealthy individuals and corporations and to flout the legal requirements of disclosure of donors and non-coordination with candidates and their campaigns.

What is one to make of Obama’s decision? Some argue he has squandered the moral high ground, weakened his ability to contrast his positions on inequality and special interest influence with those of his Republican opponent, and discouraged those among his supporters who put a high premium on changing the unseemly and corrupting role of money in politics. Others on the political right have plenty of room to attack him for hypocrisy, political expediency, old-style cynical politics.

My own view is that his change in posture toward the role of super PACs on his side of the aisle, while truly regrettable, was inevitable given the lack of any progress on the underlying problems. The acknowledged costs of making this shift are outweighed by the benefits of covering the risk of being blown away (along with Democrats in Congress) by truly massive “independent” spending campaigns financed by conservative billionaires and aggrieved financial services executives. The ugly arms race on campaign finance is unlikely to be ended through unilateral disarmament, especially if it puts in power politicians committed to a complete deregulation of money in politics.

Changing course on campaign finance law and practice will require new justices on the Supreme Court, strong appointments to the FEC, increased support for reform in Congress, and a president willing to advocate for and sign remedial legislation. First things first.

Authors

Thomas E. Mann

Image Source: © Larry Downing / Reuters

Killing Public Disclosure in Campaign Finance

Thomas E. Mann — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 17:34:00 -0400

Today’s decision by every Republican senator to use yet another filibuster to kill a campaign finance bill whose substance many, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, have in the past championed is only the latest example of the cynical opportunism that has come to characterize the opposition party in Congress.

The bill was a response to the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United that overturned decades-old law and precedent to allow corporations and unions to engage in independent spending in political campaigns with funds from their treasuries. The centerpiece of the legislation, which passed the House a month ago, is a transparency requirement that ensures that the source of funding for such independent ads be disclosed to the public. It is built upon Justice Kennedy’s bold assertion in the Citizens United majority opinion that public disclosure will counter any potentially corrupting influence by corporations through the financing of political ads.

To be sure, the bill wasn’t perfect. An exemption for a few large nonprofits like the NRA and a tough pay-to-play prohibition on modest-sized government contractors detracted from its central provision. Republicans were encouraged to negotiate a better bill but they decided once again to just say no. Contrary to what they have said and done in the past, transparency of campaign finance spending is no longer desirable or acceptable. It will chill free speech and violate individual privacy.

Sound familiar? In our new Orwellian world, old Republican ideas—embedded in stimulus packages, health reform, financial regulation and climate change—have become radical, even unconstitutional measures sprung upon the American people by President Obama and the Democratic party. And these outlandish charges have consequences because of the egregious abuse of the Senate filibuster.

Altogether, another sorry performance by one of our two great political parties and a sad day for American democracy.

Authors

Thomas E. Mann

Image Source: © Jessica Rinaldi / Reuters

Is Government Broken? Strengthening Democracy through Election and Governance Reforms

Tue, 01 Jun 2010 13:00:00 -0400

Event Information

June 1, 2010
1:00 PM - 5:00 PM EDT

Falk Auditorium
The Brookings Institution
1775 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC

In a recent CNN/Opinion Research survey, 86 percent of Americans said they believe the federal government is “broken.” In the last year, governance challenges complicated the nation’s capacity to address issues such as the economy, health care, climate change and financial regulation. As obstacles to governance continue to mount, what reforms need to be implemented to ensure that the United States is equipped to face its short- and long-term policy challenges? Is government broken? And if so, how do we fix it?

On June 1, the Brookings Institution, Demos, AmericaSpeaks, the Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation at Harvard University and Everyday Democracy hosted a forum to explore current challenges to good governance and to discuss ways of creating and strengthening a strong, vibrant and inclusive democracy, focusing mainly on proposed solutions to reform our governance, election and campaign finance systems. The first panel focused on how electoral and campaign finance systems can be reformed. The second discussion centered on improving institutional performance, administrative infrastructure and governance processes to better address the nation’s most pressing policy problems.

After each panel, speakers took questions from the audience.

Transcript

Event Materials

Participants

Panelists

Miles Rapoport

President, Demos

Norm Eisen

Special Counsel to the President for Ethics and Government Reform, The White House

Jon Greenbaum

Legal Director, Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights under Law

Eddie Hailes

Managing Director and General Counsel, Advancement Project

Clarissa Martinez De Castro

Director, Immigration and National Campaigns, National Council of La Raza

Nick Nyhart

President and CEO, Public Campaign

Moderator: Karen Hobert Flynn

Vice President for State Operations, Common Cause

Martha McCoy

Executive Director, Everyday Democracy

Gary Bass

Executive Director, OMB Watch

Moderator: Archon Fung

Ford Foundation Professor of Democracy and Citizenship, Harvard Kennedy School

Carolyn Lukensmeyer

President, AmericaSpeaks

@ Brookings Podcast: Corporate Spending in Elections

Thomas E. Mann — Fri, 07 May 2010 14:04:00 -0400

A recent Supreme Court ruling—Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission—is expected to open the floodgates for corporate spending to influence elections, removing all prior spending limits. Democrats are seeking legislation to curb the effect of that decision and require strict public disclosure of campaign expenditures, but face GOP opposition. Campaign finance expert Thomas Mann explains the issues in this week’s @ Brookings podcast.

Subscribe to audio and video podcasts of Brookings events and policy research »

previous play pause next

mute unmute

@ Brookings Podcast: Corporate Spending in Elections 5:23

Right-click (ctl+click for Mac) on 'Download' and select 'save link as..'

Get Code

Copy and paste the embed code above to your website or blog.

Video

Corporate Spending in Elections

Audio

@ Brookings Podcast: Corporate Spending in Elections

Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission is an Egregious Exercise of Judicial Activism

Thomas E. Mann — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 16:02:00 -0500

The 5-4 conservative majority decision in Citizens United vs. the Federal Election Commission that struck many decades of law and precedent will likely go down in history as one of the Supreme Court's most egregious exercises of judicial activism.

In spite of its imperative to rule on "cases and controversies" brought to the Court, to defer to the legitimate lawmaking authority of the Congress and other democratically elected legislatures, and to not allow simple disagreement with past judicial decisions to overrule precedent (stare decisis), the Roberts Court ruled unconstitutional the ban on corporate treasury funding of independent political campaigns.

The Court reached to make new constitutional law by ordering a re-argument of a minor case that itself raised no direct challenge to the laws and precedents that it ultimately overruled; dismissed the legitimacy of laws enacted over a century by Congress and state legislatures; equated the free speech protections of individuals and corporations in spite of countless laws and precedents that insisted on meaningful differences; and provided not a shred of evidence of new conditions or harmful effects that justified imposing their own ideological preferences on a body of settled law and social tradition.

The decision makes a mockery of Chief Justice Roberts' pious statements during his confirmation hearing that he embraced judicial modesty and constitutional avoidance. His concurring decision to respond to his critics was defensive and lame.

Justice Stevens' caustic dissent eviscerating the majority opinion penned by Justice Kennedy and the Roberts' concurrence will likely be featured in legal journals and classes for decades to come.

To be sure, Citizens United is not the first sign that the Roberts Court is dead set on deregulating campaign finance. Previous decisions have pointed in this direction and more are certain to follow.

How as a consequence are campaign finance practices likely to change? And what options exist for those who seek to limit or counter the anticipated fallout?

An immediate flood of corporate spending in federal and state campaigns is possible but uncertain.

CEOs of some major corporations are wary of entering the political thicket in so transparent a fashion for fear of alienating customers and shareholders. Legal means already existed prior to this decision (PACs, communications within the corporate family, issue ads, contributions to trade associations such as the Chamber of Commerce) to play a significant role in elections.

Privately controlled companies led by individuals with strong ideological and partisan motivations are most likely to take advantage of the new legal environment but they could already act without restraint as individuals. Perhaps the greatest impact will flow from the threat of corporate independent spending campaigns for or against officeholders whose position on issue's before federal and state governments is important to their corporate interests. This could corrupt the policy process without any dollars actually being spent. It will be some time before we are able to gauge the real impact of Citizens United.

In the meantime, Congress and legislatures in states with corporate prohibitions on their books will search for means of limiting or countering the ruling. Measures being considered are bans on political spending by corporations that have foreign ownership, government contracts or registered lobbyists or ones that have received federal bailout funds, strengthened disclosure, and requirements for shareholder approval of corporate political spending.

Most of these steps might be difficult to enact and even tougher to defend before post-Citizens United courts.

Over the longer haul, a more promising strategy is to fashion policy to encourage the proliferation of small donors to balance the political spending by corporations. In addition, politicians and citizen groups can speak and organize in a way that increases the costs to corporations who might otherwise avail themselves of this new opportunity. Large institutional and individual investors offended by the prospect of corporate treasuries being raided for political campaigns at the direction of top management might be persuaded to lead shareholder campaigns against such activities.

A radical conservative Supreme Court majority cavalierly decided to redress an alleged shortage of corporate political speech in American democracy. If, as I suspect, most Americans are bewildered and dismayed by that decision, their best recourse is to use their numbers and organizing energies to ensure that individual speech is not drowned by the trillions of dollars of corporate assets.

Authors

Thomas E. Mann

Publication: McClatchy Newspapers

Improving Participation in American Democracy

Thu, 14 Jan 2010 00:00:00 -0500

The Campaign Finance Institute, American Enterprise Institute and the Brookings Institution have released findings of a new report endorsing dramatic change in the ongoing national dialogue about money in politics. The study offers a new vision of how campaign finance and communications policy can help further democracy through broader participation. Governance Studies Senior Fellow Tom Mann details some key points from the report noting that the digital revolution has and will continue to make an impact on how campaigns are waged.

Video

Reform in an Age of Networked Campaigns

Anthony Corrado, Michael J. Malbin, Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 00:00:00 -0500

Executive Summary

The political world has been arguing about campaign finance policy for decades. A once rich conversation has become a stale two-sided battleground. One side sees contribution or spending limits as essential to restraining corruption, the appearance of corruption, or the “undue influence” of wealthy donors. The other resists any such limits in the name of free speech. The time has come to leap over this gulf and, as much as possible, move the disputes from the courts. Preventing corruption and protecting free speech should each be among the key goals of any policy regime, but they should not be the only objectives. This report seeks to change the ongoing conversation. Put simply, instead of focusing on attempts to further restrict the wealthy few, it seeks to focus on activating the many.

This is not a brief for deregulation. The members of this working group support limits on contributions to candidates and political parties. But we also recognize the limits of limits. More importantly, we believe that some of the key objectives can be pursued more effectively by expanding the playing field.

Interactive communications technology potentially can transform the political calculus. But technology alone cannot do the trick. Sound governmental policies will be essential: first, to protect the conditions under which a politically beneficial technology may flourish and, second, to encourage more candidates — particularly those below the top of the national ticket — to reach out to small donors and volunteers.

We focus on participation for two reasons. First, if enough people come into the system at the low end there may be less reason to worry about the top. Second, heightened participation would be healthy for its own sake. A more engaged citizenry would mean a greater share of the public following political events and participating in public life. And the evidence seems to suggest that giving and doing are reciprocal activities: volunteering stimulates giving, while giving small amounts seems to heighten non-financial forms of participation by people who feel more invested in the process.

For these reasons, we aim to promote equality and civic engagement by enlarging the participatory pie instead of shrinking it. The Supreme Court has ruled out pursuing equality or civic engagement by constraining speech. But the Court has never ruled out pursuing these goals through policies that do not constrain speech.

This report will show how to further these ends. The first half surveys current conditions; the second contains detailed recommendations for moving forward.

The report begins with new opportunities. The digital revolution is altering the calculus of participation by reducing the costs of both individual and collective action. Millions of American went online in 2008 to access campaign materials, comment on news reports, watch campaign videos and share information. The many can now communicate with the many without the intervention of elite or centralized organizations. This capacity has made new forms of political organizations easier to create, while permitting the traditional organizations — candidates and parties — to achieve unprecedented scales of citizen participation. No example better illustrates this potential than the Obama campaign of 2008, which is discussed at length in the full report.

Downloads

Download Full Report »

Video

Authors

Anthony Corrado
Michael J. Malbin
Thomas E. Mann
Norman J. Ornstein

Publication: The Brookings Institution, American Enterprise Institute, The Campaign Finance Institute

Campaign Reform in the Networked Age: Fostering Participation through Small Donors and Volunteers

Thu, 14 Jan 2010 10:30:00 -0500

Event Information

January 14, 2010
10:30 AM - 12:00 PM EST

Falk Auditorium
The Brookings Institution
1775 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC

The 2008 elections showcased the power of the Internet to generate voter enthusiasm, mobilize volunteers and increase small-donor contributions. After the political world has been arguing about campaign finance policy for decades, the digital revolution has altered the calculus of participation.

On January 14, a joint project of the Campaign Finance Institute, American Enterprise Institute and the Brookings Institution unveiled a new report that seeks to change the ongoing national dialogue about money in politics. At this event, the four authors of the report will detail their findings and recommendations. Relying on lessons from the record-shattering 2008 elections and the rise of Internet campaigning, experts will present a new vision of how campaign finance and communications policy can help further democracy through broader participation.

Video

Audio

Campaign Reform in the Networked Age: Fostering Participation through Small Donors and Volunteers

Transcript

Transcript (.pdf)

Event Materials

20090114_campaign_finance

Participants

Moderator

Panelists

Anthony J. Corrado

Chair of the Board, Campaign Finance Institute
Nonresident Senior Fellow, Governance Studies

Michael J. Malbin

Co-Founder and Executive Director, Campaign Finance Institute
Professor of Political Science, University at Albany, SUNY

Norman J. Ornstein

Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute

Campaign 2008: The Final Weeks

Fri, 31 Oct 2008 10:00:00 -0400

Event Information

October 31, 2008
10:00 AM - 11:30 AM EDT

Falk Auditorium
The Brookings Institution
1775 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC

With the presidential debates completed, the campaigns of Senators John McCain and Barack Obama are focusing on persuading remaining undecided voters and mobilizing their supporters for Election Day. The Opportunity 08 project at Brookings and Princeton University examined key questions in the final stretch of the 2008 campaign, including money, ads and mobilization.

Have the candidates’ ads been effective at swaying voters thus far, and what form will they take in the campaign’s final week? With Obama taking the unprecedented step of opting out of public funding for the general election, has McCain been able to leverage party resources to keep pace? Will either candidate be able to match the Republican National Committee’s massive get-out-the-vote efforts of 2004? To examine these and related matters, the Brookings Institution’s Opportunity 08 project, in partnership with the Center for the Study of Democratic Politics at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, hosted the final roundtable discussion on key questions about American electoral politics in connection with the 2008 campaign.

Featuring panelists Anthony Corrado, a nonresident senior fellow at Brookings and professor at Colby College; Diana Mutz, a nonresident senior fellow at Brookings and professor at the University of Pennsylvania; Lynn Vavreck of UCLA; Mike Allen of Politico; and moderated by Larry Bartels of Princeton and Thomas Mann of Brookings, the session explored how money, ads and mobilization are likely to affect the outcome of the presidential election.

After initial presentations, panelists took audience questions.

Event Materials

View Anthony Corrado's handout »
View Diana Mutz's handout »

Transcript

Transcript (.pdf)

Event Materials

20081031_election

Participants

Moderator

Larry Bartels

Director, Center for the Study of Democratic Politics, Donald E. Stokes Professor of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University

Panelists

Mike Allen

Chief Political Correspondent, Politico

Lynn Vavreck

Assistant Professor of Political Science, University of California, Los Angeles

What's Next For Campaign Finance?

Thomas E. Mann — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 12:00:00 -0400

Thomas Mann joined Abby Rapoport of The American Prospect to discuss the significance of the 2008 Presidential Election campaign finances.

Abby Rapoport: Now that soft money has been eliminated is the sheer amount of money spent something to be concerned about or is the steady growth in spending a sign of involvement?

Thomas Mann: I've never worried about the overall amount of money in campaigns. We're a huge country, a public not much engaged in politics or public affairs. It's hard to get through the din of advertising for commercial products. ... The problematics come with how it's raised and how it's spent, how it's allocated among candidates. But in this cycle, it seems to me that [the high amount of money came from] the high level of interest, the competitiveness between Clinton and Obama and basically the fact that the public financing system fell into disrepair.

It just wasn't credible in the nominating process, because the spending limits were just crazy. I mean think about it, Clinton and Obama and McCain, others would have been limited to a little over 40 million dollars in spending. Clinton and Obama each raised over 250 million dollars so far, and there's still a couple months to go.

Abby Rapoport: You were very involved in the passage of McCain-Feingold back in 2002. That bill tried to close off loopholes in an existing campaign finance system. Do you think there are more loopholes that have exposed themselves this cycle?

Thomas Mann: My inclination is not to go back in and say what can we regulate now? Mine is to say, let's acknowledge two big things happening. One, the courts have made it absolutely clear that parties, political parties, can spend as much as they want as long as they do it independently, on behalf of their candidates. Which means there's no way now that you can control spending. That's an important point to keep in mind. The second one is that we've seen just the first evidence of the possibility of a very different source of funding for campaigns -- namely small donors.

And therefore my inclination is to acknowledge the first and therefore don't get confused about what public financing can or cannot do. Rethink public financing in light of what parties can do independently and secondly begin to think creatively about building the small donor base for campaigns, not just at the presidential level, but the congressional level, state legislative level. See what it takes, maybe new public policies for tax credits, for matching funds. But I'm more inclined to think less in a regulatory restrictive way, than saying, "Hey, a new dimension is opening, campaigns are changing, more people are entering as small donors. Are there ways we can build on that?"

Read the full interview »

Reprinted with permission from Abby Rapoport, "What's Next for Campaign Finance," The American Prospect Online: July 24, 2008. www.prospect.org. The American Prospect, 2000 L Street, Suite 717, Washington, DC 20036. All rights reserved."

Authors

Thomas E. Mann

Publication: The American Prospect

A Report on the 2008 Presidential Nomination Ads

Darrell M. West — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 00:00:00 -0400

Few aspects of campaigns attract as much discussion as television advertisements. Political spots generally represent the largest single expenditure by candidates and often generate considerable news coverage. Yet many observers are not happy with the quality of information presented in ads or the tone of political discourse. Critics worry that the emergence of thirty-second commercials undermine substantive discourse and lead to campaigns that are overly negative. Both raise potential problems for democratic elections.

In looking at campaign ads in this year’s presidential nominating election, prominent campaign ads were more negative than in previous races. Both parties featured open races with a large number of candidates, and the result was negativity levels that were above the historic averages. This finding raises the question of whether this fall’s general election will provide the quality of political discourse needed by voters.

According to an analysis of prominent nomination ads, 61 percent of the 2008 Democratic ads were negative, compared to 43 percent of the Republican ads. Both rates are higher than the average ad negativity of 31 percent for Democrats and 36 percent for Republicans in nominating contests from 1972-2008. Prominent ads were defined as those attracting major media attention.

Percentage of Prominent Nomination Ads That Were Negative, 1972-2008
	1972	1976	1980	1984	1988	1992	1996	2000	2004	2008	Average
Dem	14%	0%	40%	50%	16%	67%	0%	33%	30%	61%	31%
Rep	0%	33%	0%	33%	44%	78%	63%	64%	0%	43%	36%

Policy Specific Ads- Twenty-eight percent of the 2008 GOP and Democratic nomination ads were policy specific. Both numbers are above the historic ad specificity of 13 percent for Democrats and 18 percent for Republicans for nominating battles from 1972-2008.

Percentage of Prominent Nomination Ads That Were Policy Specific, 1972-2008
	1972	1976	1980	1984	1988	1992	1996	2000	2004	2008	Average
Dem	0%	0%	0%	10%	21%	33%	0%	0%	40%	28%	13%
Rep	0%	0%	0%	0%	22%	67%	21%	45%	0%	28%	18%

Content of Ads- Republicans were more likely to focus on personal qualities (57 percent of all appeals), while Democrats emphasized domestic issues (44 percent) and personal qualities (39 percent). Surprisingly, given the importance of the Iraq War and the War on Terror, neither Democrats nor Republicans devoted much attention to international issues in their advertising campaigns.

The largest category of appeals on the 2008 Democratic side was health and education (22 percent), followed by leadership (17 percent), experience (17 percent), energy and gas prices (11 percent), the economy (6 percent), taxes and budget (6 percent), moral values (6 percent), campaign prospects (6 percent), campaign funding (6 percent), and campaign strategy (6 percent).

On the Republican side, the most common 2008 appeals were moral values (19 percent), immigration (14 percent), extremism (14 percent), taxes and budget (10 percent), leadership (10 percent), trust and honesty (10 percent), the economy (5 percent), health and education (5 percent), crime and violence (5 percent), national defense (5 percent), and experience (5 percent).

Content of Prominent Nomination Ads, 2008
	Democrats	Republicans
Domestic Issues	44%	38%
International Issues	0%	5%
Personal Qualities	39%	57%
Campaign	17%	0%

Content of News Stories About Ads- Television news stories about nomination ads were less issue-oriented than the spots themselves. Only five percent of the stories about the Democratic campaign focused on domestic issues and 0 percent emphasized international issues. Instead, more than three-quarters (78 percent) of the new stories dwelled on campaign strategy or electoral prospects. Similar patterns were found on the Republican side. Only 19 percent of news stories focused on domestic issues and 0 percent focused on international issues. More than half of the news stories emphasized campaign strategy or prospects.

This suggests that reporters need to focus more on policy substance when reporting on campaign advertisements. Rather than seeing how the ad relates to campaign strategy or affects election prospects, it would be more helpful to viewers if reporters focus on the policy message of advertisements and the degree of accuracy on ad appeals.

Content of News Stories About Nomination Ads, 2008
	Democrats	Republicans
Domestic Issues	5%	19%
International Issues	0%	0%
Personal Qualities	17%	29%
Campaign	78%	52%

Spending on Ads- The 2008 presidential nomination campaign was a year of record spending on television ads. According to the Wisconsin Advertising Project analysis of TNS Media Intelligence/Campaign Media Analysis Group ad buy data, $200 million was spent on campaign advertising by the leading presidential contenders, $135 million by Democrats and $57 million by Republicans. This included $75 million by Barack Obama, $46 million by Hillary Clinton, $32 million by Mitt Romney, and $11 million by John McCain.

Overall, there were 301 different candidate-produced advertisements, 195 by Democratic candidates and 106 by Republican aspirants. This included 79 ads by Hillary Clinton, 49 by Barack Obama, 32 by John Edwards, 11 by Bill Richardson, 13 by Chris Dodd, 7 by Joe Biden, 2 by Dennis Kucinich, and 2 by Mike Gravel. On the Republican side, Mitt Romney aired 42 different ads, compared to 23 by John McCain, 17 by Rudy Giuliani, 6 by Mike Huckabee, 6 by Fred Thompson, 9 by Ron Paul, 1 by Duncan Hunter, 1 by Sam Brownback, and 1 by Tom Tancredo.

One noteworthy aspect of the Democratic nominating battle was that Obama outspent Clinton on ads in virtually every primary and caucus state. He spent: $9.7 million on ads in Iowa; $7 million in New Hampshire; $1.3 million in Nevada; $1.6 million in South Carolina; $13.2 million on Super Tuesday states such as Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Georgia and California; $664,000 in Louisiana, Nebraska and Washington; $2 million in Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia; $1.5 million in Wisconsin and Hawaii; $14.5 million in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island; $433,000 in Mississippi; and $10.7 million in Pennsylvania.

In contrast, Clinton spent: $7.5 million on ads in Iowa; $6.4 million in New Hampshire; $862,000 million in Nevada; $1.5 million in South Carolina; $10.2 million on Super Tuesday states such as Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Georgia and California; $203,000 in Louisiana, Nebraska and Washington; $573,000 million in Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia; $328,000 million in Wisconsin and Hawaii; $7.8 million in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island; $70,000 in Mississippi; and $4.9 million in Pennsylvania. This clearly helped Obama communicate his message of “change” to voters.

However, the candidate who spends the most on advertising does not always triumph. On the Republican side, Mitt Romney outspent McCain by a huge margin, yet still lost the nomination. In Iowa, Romney purchased 8,059 ad buys, compared to 1,371 for Mike Huckabee and 1,164 for Fred Thompson. In New Hampshire, Romney purchased 6,790 ad buys, compared to 2,675 for Rudy Giulinai, 2,525 for John McCain, and 90 by Huckabee (based on Campaign Media Analysis Group data). Indeed, from January to November 2007, Romney ran television spots 17,173 times, compared to 945 for McCain. Overall, in the 2007-08 campaign cycle, Romney ran ads around 35,000 times, which was about half of all the ad buys by Republican candidates.

Noteworthy 2008 Nomination Ads

Funniest Ads – Bill Richardson’s job resume ad and John McCain’s ad criticizing Hillary Clinton for funding Woodstock Museum and saying he was “tied up” as a Vietnam POW at the time of the concert

Most Effective Attack Ads – Mitt Romney’s ad on Huckabee’s record (gap between rhetoric and action) and Republican Majority for Choice’s independent ad accusing Romney of flip-flopping on abortion (compares his words between 1994-2007)

Most Effective Response Ad – Barack Obama’s “Pennies” ad criticizing Clinton’s gas tax proposal and citing newspaper sources labeling her idea an election year gimmick

Boldest Ads – John Edwards’s “Rigged” ad saying system is corrupt and substituting Democratic corporate lawyers for Republican ones won’t change the system and Joe Biden’s “Security” ad outlining his plan to separate Iraq into different regions

Best Endorsement Ad – Barack Obama’s Caroline Kennedy ad

Least Effective Endorsement Ad – Jack Nicholson’s independent ad endorsing Hillary Clinton

Most Short-Sighted Ads – Rudy Giuliani’s ad attacking media pundits and commentators and Hillary Clinton’s “What’s Right” ad complaining about pundit talk on who’s up and down

Most Inflammatory Ad – Mitt Romney’s Jihad II ad (graphic images of terrorism, violence and Islamic fundamentalists)

Most Pious Ad – Mike Huckabee’s Christmas ad (direct pitch to Christmas fundamentalists framed by a cross on a bookcase)

Ads Most Frequently Covered by the Media – Hillary Clinton’s 3 a.m. phone ad and North Carolina GOP’s ad attacking Obama and showing words and pictures of Reverend Jeremiah Wright (with tagline saying Obama is too extreme for North Carolina)

Authors

Darrell M. West

Money in the 2008 Elections

Thomas E. Mann — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 12:00:00 -0400

The decision by presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama to decline the public grant of $84 million for his general election campaign has been widely viewed as, and harshly criticized for, administering the final death blow to the presidential public financing system. That system, rightly considered the crown jewel of public financing in American elections, was set up in 1974 as part of extensive amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act and has been a central feature of presidential elections ever since.

In 2000, George W. Bush became the first successful major party candidate to opt out of the nominating season matching funds section of the law and thereby free himself of the spending limits that are linked to acceptance of the public funds. President Bush repeated that practice in his 2004 re-election bid and was followed by Democratic candidates Howard Dean and John Kerry. Bush and Kerry each raised around $250 million before their party’s convention, compared with the $37 million they would have been limited to had they accepted the public matching funds. By 2008, opting into the public finance system was widely viewed as a sign of weakness. Early in 2007, Obama and Hillary Clinton announced their decision to forego public funding in the nominating season and all of the major Republican candidates followed the same path (although, in the case of John McCain, only after the revival of his candidacy in early 2008). While the nomination component of public financing fell into disrepair over a number of years, the general election grant was accepted by all of the major party candidates between 1976 and 2004. Obama’s decision to reject the public grant for the 2008 general election campaign appears to have set an ominous precedent for the entire program.

To many supporters of campaign finance reform, this was only the latest in a series of discouraging developments in the financing of the 2008 elections. The amounts of money raised by the presidential candidates ($296 million for Obama, $238 million for Clinton, and $122 million for McCain through May) shattered all previous records. The money primary in 2007 once again sharply narrowed the field of candidates before the first delegate selection event was held. The Supreme Court, under new Chief Justice John Roberts, moved in a decidedly deregulatory direction, with one decision potentially undercutting a major provision prohibiting corporate and union treasury funding of electioneering communications of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, known widely as McCain-Feingold. An extended political deadlock between Senate Democrats and Republicans left the Federal Election Commission with only two members (two short of the majority required for formal action) in the heat of a hotly contested presidential election. And, as in 2004, outside groups threatened to play a prominent independent role in attacking the presidential candidates.

This litany of problems associated with money in the 2008 elections conjures up an image of a broken system that is much more pessimistic than the evidence warrants. The large amounts of campaign funds raised are indicative of the extraordinarily high level of public interest in the stakes of the election and the choices being offered. Fundraising by the candidates appears more an indicator of their electoral appeal than a cause of it. In a political environment hostile to Republicans, it is no surprise that Democratic candidates have enjoyed a distinct advantage. Large soft-money contributions to parties from corporations, unions, and wealthy individuals (often arranged through intense pressure from elected and party officials) are no longer a part of the picture. Presidential candidates have focused on hard-money contributors, which are limited to $2,300 per donor. Several of the candidates, Obama in particular, have attracted a huge number of small donors via the Internet. Money has not been the decisive factor in either party’s nomination contest. Although falling short of Obama’s fundraising, Clinton raised enough money to give her a fair shot at winning the nomination. She won a number of primaries in which she was greatly outspent by Obama. Her problems stemmed more from campaign strategy and choices regarding the allocation of her resources. John McCain won the Republican nomination in spite of his fundraising shortfall. And the efforts of outside groups to shape the election outcome have thus far constituted more talk than action. Give the potential legal liabilities and questions about the efficacy of independent advertising campaigns, many wealthy donors have decided to stay on the sidelines this election season.

Even the seeming collapse of the public financing system has a silver lining. The extended and highly competitive contest between Clinton and Obama, which mobilized millions of new voters and riveted the attention of publics across the globe, would not have been possible if either had opted into the public matching program. Moreover, Obama’s decision to reject the public general election grant is unlikely to substantially alter the balance of resources that would have resulted if both candidates had opted in. That is because the public grant constitutes only a part (and clearly less than a majority) of the funds spent on behalf of the presidential candidates. The Supreme Court has ruled that political parties may spend unlimited sums on behalf of their candidates as long as they do so independently, while the presidential candidates can assist their parties by transferring unspent funds from their nomination season coffers, sharing donor lists, and engaging in joint fundraising activities. The McCain campaign and the Republican National Committee together might raise and spend as much as $300 million in the general election campaign. Obama and the DNC could have well have matched or exceeded that sum even if he had chosen to remain within the public funding system.

What Obama gains by opting out is not a huge new fundraising advantage, but instead strategic control over his resources, allowing his campaign to control his message, define the electoral playing field, and allocate resources in a way consistent with his campaign strategy.

There are virtues to public financing that merit a reconsideration of the design of existing law in light of new developments and recent practice. In the meantime, there is no particular virtue for candidates remaining within that system.

Authors

Thomas E. Mann

Publication: The Chautauquan Daily

A Collapse of the Campaign Finance Regime?

Thomas E. Mann — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:00:00 -0400

This article originally appeared in the April 2008 issue of The Forum. Copyright is given to The Berkeley Electronic Press.

The fascinating 2008 presidential election has produced many unexpected twists and turns, with more likely to follow on the long road to the national party conventions and November election. Those of us who profess to be experts on presidential elections have been humbled by the limits of received wisdom and by the rapid pace of change in many aspects of electioneering. Campaign finance is one such change. Developments are sufficiently dramatic as to raise questions about the viability of the entire regime of campaign finance law.

The presidential public financing system is largely irrelevant in this election cycle. All of the serious candidates except John Edwards opted out of public matching grants in the nomination phase (in John McCain’s case, not without a legal challenge) and both major party candidates may forego the public grant in the general election. (Even if they don’t, those public funds are likely to be dwarfed by independent expenditures by parties and outside groups.) The striking increase in private funds raised by presidential candidates, initially from maxedout individual donors facilitated by bundlers and later from Internet-based small donors, confirms that many candidates have real alternatives to public funding and the spending limits that come with it.

Outside groups have also had a large campaign finance presence in the current election cycle, a presence that will become even more prominent once both presidential nominees are decided and the general election campaign begins in earnest.

The new Supreme Court under Chief Justice Roberts, with Justice Alito replacing Justice O’Connor, has moved in a decidedly deregulatory direction. James Bopp and Brad Smith are mapping and executing a very promising litigation strategy aimed at limiting or reversing earlier decisions - extending from McConnell v. Federal Election Commission to Buckley v. Valeo and before - upholding various forms of campaign finance regulation. They will likely have a sympathetic Court to work with for some time.

And an extended political deadlock between Senate Democrats and Republicans over the nomination of Hans von Spakovsky as Commissioner of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) has left the agency with only two members (two short of the majority required for formal action) in the heat of a highly contested presidential election.

Assessing how these developments have altered the regulatory regime and exploring how they might more dramatically reshape the role of money in elections are central to this issue of The Forum. I hope it might presage some cooling of the ideologically-charged and tendentious debates about campaign finance that have become so depressingly repetitive and sterile. Most of these debates revolve around the alleged objectives and consequences of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, widely know as McCain-Feingold.

Let me be clear about my own perspective on this matter. McCain-Feingold was a very limited legislative initiative designed to restore the effectiveness and credibility of longstanding contribution limits and restrictions on the use of corporate and union treasury funds in federal elections. Its two major pillars - a ban on party soft money and the regulation of electioneering communications - were agnostic about the total amount of money raised and spent in federal elections even while the rhetoric of some of the bill’s supporters in Congress and outside reformers made clear they longed for a reduction in the money chase.

The ban on party soft money has been remarkably successful: parties and elected officials are out of the business of soliciting large unlimited contributions from corporations, unions, and individuals. For the most part, soft money contributions have not been diverted to outside groups. And the parties have adapted very well to a post-soft money world. They are today more significant players in the financing of presidential and congressional elections than they were before the enactment of McCain-Feingold.

The electioneering communications section of the law was limited to candidate-specific broadcast, cable and satellite communications to targeted audiences in close proximity to primary and general elections. Its purpose was to extend the existing prohibition on corporate and union expenditures on express advocacy to what had become its functional equivalent. McCain-Feingold left untouched the many avenues for campaigning available to corporations and unions not covered by the bright-line test for electioneering (or by the ban on party soft money). The second pillar of McCain-Feingold also imposed no new restrictions on large individual donors. Pre-existing law set a limit of $5,000 for individual contributions to non-party political committees.

The electioneering provision of McCain-Feingold largely achieved the limited goal it set for itself, although that goal increasingly appears circumscribed by outside group activity unaddressed and unaffected by the law. Moreover, the successful as-applied challenge in FEC v. WRTL is likely to open new opportunities for candidate-specific advertising supported by corporations and unions (see the Briffault article in this issue).

Critics of McCain-Feingold clearly take a much less benign view of the law’s purposes and consequences. Their arguments sometimes emphasize the draconian reach and impact of the law, other times its ineffectualness and pattern of generating unintended negative consequences. Most prominent among the former is that campaign finance law, McCain-Feingold in particular, suppresses free speech. The argument is decidedly theoretical, not empirical. By virtually every indicator available - ads broadcast, dollars spent, the diversity of views expressed in all forms of campaign activity - political speech has been alive and well in the elections since the enactment of McCain-Feingold. Compared with most other democracies which routinely prohibit paid campaign ads, limit expenditures by parties and candidates, and ban independent expenditures by groups and individuals, free speech in this country is guaranteed by a powerful First Amendment. Repeated charges, by such serious analysts as columnists David Broder, Robert Samuelson and George Will, that McCain-Feingold imposes a reign of censorship rest on a house of cards. It is not surprising that campaign finance critics scrambled to put together a test case to bring an as-applied challenge since no real ones were available. Attorney James Bopp, Jr. searched nationally for groups that would be willing to run an appropriate ad and eventually struck pay dirt in Maine and Wisconsin. This was a perfectly legitimate legal strategy that proved successful but hardly evidence of the suppression of political speech.

Critics often argue that the law harms political parties by denying them an important source of income and weakening them relative to unregulated nonparty groups. Yet party fundraising and spending in the 2004 and 2008 elections relative to those preceding McCain-Feingold have been robust, with large sums spent (and more efficiently than soft-money financed "issue ads") on behalf of candidates and state and local party organizations. Moreover, the increase in electioneering activities by 527 and nonprofit organizations began before McCain-Feingold was on the books. Clearly, larger forces are at work.

Some have even argued that McCain-Feingold is responsible for the collapse of the presidential public financing system by virtue of its doubling and indexing of individual contribution limits. That is preposterous. Many aspects of the public grant program - state and national spending limits, the size of the match, the timing of payments - fell out of date well before the new law was enacted. George W. Bush successfully opted out of the public match program in 2000 and would have done the same in 2004 without any change in contribution limits. The same is true for Dean and Kerry in 2004 and the major presidential candidates in 2008.

Critics also point to the fecklessness of efforts such as McCain-Feingold to limit the amount of money in elections or the overall role of wealthy individuals. I agree that such efforts are likely to fail but insist that they were not objectives of this most recent round of reform.

My resistance to the arguments leveled at McCain-Feingold by its critics does not mean that I believe that the constitutional rationale for and traditional approaches to campaign finance regulation will or indeed should have a bright future. The constitutional, political and practical obstacles to maintaining and strengthening the current regime are daunting. The Roberts Court will look askance at legislative initiatives to shore up the regulatory system as they reconsider previous decisions. New opportunities for fundraising will make it even more difficult to use public funds to entice candidates to limit their spending. Parties and nonparty groups will use their constitutionally protected right to make independent expenditures to prevent any election campaign from being fully financed with public funds and to ensure a cacophony of voices in federal election campaigns. Determined wealthy individuals will avail themselves of a myriad of legally-sanctioned channels for attempting to influence the outcome of elections. Continuing partisan battles over the appointment of FEC commissioners will reinforce the many other sources of the agency’s ineffectiveness.

Consequently, I think we are overdue for a reconsideration of campaign finance regulation, one that doesn’t simply rehash the old and stale arguments between reformers and deregulators. Technology is dramatically reshaping the ways in which funds are raised and campaigns are conducted. The not-too-distant future may witness major reductions in the cost of campaigns (with targeted digital communications replacing broadcast ads) and the replacement of a limited number of large contributors with millions of small donors. Candidates and parties will have less control of their campaigns as the potential of the Internet for motivated individuals and self-forming social groups is more fully realized. In this new world, some forms of regulation might stymie rather than facilitate constructive change. At the same time, limits on contributions to candidates and parties might well prove of lasting value. The point is that serious rethinking of the new world of campaigns and campaign finance, one characterized by openness and pragmatism, not by ideological rigidity, is to be welcomed.

The 2008 presidential election cycle provides some encouraging developments for those concerned about the role of money in politics. These include the rise of small donors, the failure of some well-funded campaigns and the success of others that were poorly funded, the limits of paid broadcast ads, the investments in grassroots campaigning, and the signs that suggest fundraising is more an indicator than a cause of interest, energy and electoral appeal.

Huge challenges lie ahead. Encouraging electoral competition, strengthening transparency, promoting political equality, and reducing conflicts of interest in our electoral system require continuing attention to the role of money. But the question of how best to advance those objectives becomes more interesting with each passing year.

Read the full forum »

Authors

Thomas E. Mann

Publication: The Forum, Volume 6, Issue 1