Campaign spending by outside groups tops $257 million

[one...two...tree 2,762]

By David Lightman | McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — With a week to go before the elections, independent groups, most of them with sharp partisan leanings, have spent $257.7 million to influence political campaigns, nearly quadrupling such interest groups' total spending in the last midterm election, according to a Washington watchdog group.

In 2006, the last nonpresidential congressional election year, the groups spent a total of $68.8 million for the election, according to information from the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks the data.

Spending by conservative groups this year is more than 2 to 1 ahead of spending by more liberal groups. In 2006, when Democrats regained control of Congress, liberal spending led by about 2 to 1.

The 2010 spending spree is shattering records thanks partly to an unusually competitive year when control of Congress appears up for grabs, but largely due to the Supreme Court's ruling last January in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

The 5-4 decision removed curbs on independent expenditures by corporations and unions, freeing them to spend without

limit from their own treasuries on campaign ads and advocacy efforts so long as they aren't coordinated with candidates' campaigns.

Under tax and campaign finance laws, most such groups don't have to disclose their donors until after the election.

Just how much all this spending matters to the outcome of the elections Nov. 2 is unclear.

Experts have long thought that money can help define lesser-known candidates, for better or worse. They also stress that money alone won't win a race, however, particularly since voters often become numbed by repetitive advertising.

"Television ads are important in driving voter perceptions of candidates in a race," said Jonathan Collegio, a spokesman for the groups, though he added, "At a certain point, any advertising will result in diminishing returns, especially in the last weeks of an election cycle."

The other question that the spending barrage raises is whether voters are being badly misinformed, confused by the barrage of charges and countercharges and uncertain whom the groups with haughty-sounding names represent.

"People don't like to think they're being bought," said Trevor Potter, a former Federal Election Commission chairman who's now the president of the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center.

However, he warned, evidence long has shown that advertising compels people to buy certain products, and "it seems unlikely a lot of those calculations are wrong."

One of the more active independent groups is American Crossroads, a political campaign group whose board chairman is former Republican Party Chairman Michael Duncan, and its sister organization, Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies, an issue advocacy organization. Karl Rove, President George W. Bush's political guru, is an informal adviser to both.

"Voters should have a healthy dose of skepticism and a steady finger on the remote to change the channel," said David Levinthal, a spokesman for the Center for Responsive Politics.

Among outside independent groups, the conservative American Action Network is the top spender so far, at $22.7 million, followed by American Crossroads, at $18 million, and Crossroads GPS, at $11.5 million.

Also listed as big spenders are two labor unions friendly to Democrats: the Service Employees International Union, at $11.3 million, and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, at $10.5 million.

The chief beneficiaries so far have been Senate races in Colorado, where outside groups had poured in $29.7 million as of Monday — with GOP-friendly groups giving slightly more — and Pennsylvania, where $18.8 million has been spent and where Democratic-allied groups have a slight edge.

Outside spending is also heavy in Washington state, with $14.4 million; Nevada, with $14.2 million; and Arkansas, with $13.3 million.

The efforts of Republican challengers Dino Rossi in Washington state and Sharron Angle in Nevada are getting more help than Democratic incumbents are in those states, but in Arkansas, Sen. Blanche Lincoln, though trailing badly in the polls, has seen a slight outside spending advantage.

The House of Representatives race that's attracting the most outside cash has been Nevada's 3rd District battle between incumbent Democrat Dina Titus and Republican Joe Heck. About $6.1 million has been spent, with Titus holding an edge in the district, which stretches from Las Vegas' suburbs to the Arizona border.

Read more: http://www.mcclatchy...l#ixzz13QgO9wfb

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The 1.6 million-member AFSCME is spending a total of $87.5 million... "We're the big dog," said Larry Scanlon, the head of AFSCME's political operations. "But we don't like to brag."

Edited October 26, 2010 by ##########

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The 1.6 million-member AFSCME is spending a total of $87.5 million... "We're the big dog," said Larry Scanlon, the head of AFSCME's political operations. "But we don't like to brag."

from the OP:

Spending by conservative groups this year is more than 2 to 1 ahead of spending by more liberal groups.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

from the OP:

OP is wrong. More myths from the left.

[Pooky 3,794]

The 1.6 million-member AFSCME is spending a total of $87.5 million... "We're the big dog," said Larry Scanlon, the head of AFSCME's political operations. "But we don't like to brag."

from the OP:

Spending by conservative groups this year is more than 2 to 1 ahead of spending by more liberal groups. In 2006, when Democrats regained control of Congress, liberal spending led by about 2 to 1.

So, how did the OP miss a figure which, by itself is over one-third of the total quoted?

Kind of makes the 2:1 ratio look a bit stupid, really.

Edited October 26, 2010 by Pooky

[one...two...tree 2,762]

OP is wrong. More myths from the left.

Let's see, Brody Mullins, a self-confessed conservative type blogger writing for WSJ (Rupert Murdoch) vs. a nonpartisan watchdog group.

News Corp., publisher of The Wall Street Journal, is one of the larger corporate donors on the other side of the ledger, and has donated $1.25 million to the Republican Governors Association and $1 million to the Chamber of Commerce.

The Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) is a nonpartisan research group based in Washington, D.C. that tracks money in politics and the effect of money and lobbying activity on elections and public policy and maintains a public online database of its information.^[1] The Hill has described the group as a liberal organization.^[2]

The freely available OpenSecrets.org databases allow web users to track federal campaign contributions and lobbying activity in a variety of ways, such as by industry and interest group. Other popular resources include the personal financial disclosures of every member of the US Congress, the president and top members of the administration. Users can also search their own ZIP codes to learn how their neighbors are allocating their political contributions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Responsive_Politics

[Pooky 3,794]

The Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) is a nonpartisan research group based in Washington, D.C. that tracks money in politics and the effect of money and lobbying activity on elections and public policy and maintains a public online database of its information.^[1] The Hill has described the group as a liberal organization.^[2]

So, see the sources at the bottom of the AFSCME graphic, crediting the AFSCME themselves, CRP and the WSJ.

Again, how can the OP miss something like this?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

So, see the sources at the bottom of the AFSCME graphic, crediting the AFSCME themselves, CRP and the WSJ.

Again, how can the OP miss something like this?

CRP missed nothing. But feel free to read their report and decide for yourself....or just go with what a conservative blogger from the WSJ tells you.

from ........ http://reporting.sunlightfoundation.com/ (click here to see the expenditure breakdowns)

Ten days before the mid-term elections, and left leaning outside groups still lag behind their conservative counterparts, and are being outspent by $43 million. But spending by the two Democratic party committees--the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee--have narrowed the gap, leaving them $23 million behind all Republican spending. Just five days ago, Democrats trailed overall by $37.6 million.

In all, outside groups including party committees have spent more than $322 million, dwarfing independent spending in 2006 which totaled $68 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. A larger percentage of the spending is in the form of independent expenditures – which require organizations to identify specific candidates they support or oppose.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

CRP missed nothing. But feel free to read their report and decide for yourself....or just go with what a conservative blogger from the WSJ tells you.

In other words, don't confuse you with the facts. You will believe what you want to believe.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

In other words, don't confuse you with the facts. You will believe what you want to believe.

WSJ blogger, and conservative hack, Mullin, is cherry-picking the facts. If you want to look at all the data, look at the report by the Center for Responsive Politics.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

WSJ blogger, and conservative hack, Mullin, is cherry-picking the facts. If you want to look at all the data, look at the report by the Center for Responsive Politics.

The Center for Responsive Politics is liberal. So you are countering a conservative group with a liberal group. Like I said, don't let the facts confuse you.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The Center for Responsive Politics is liberal. So you are countering a conservative group with a liberal group. Like I said, don't let the facts confuse you.

Really? Says who?

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Really? Says who?

It is obvious to anyone that isn't a LWN.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Between AFSCME spending 87.5 million, SEIU spending 44 million and the NEA spending 40 million for a total of 171.5 million out of a total of 257 million how can the conservitives donors be outspending liberal ones by a 2 to 1 margin? The math does not add up. There can't be cherry picking going on because your so "respectible" Center for Responsive Politics is cited as a source for those numbers. So the only thing we can assume is the person from Center for Responsive Politics has fudged the numbers in your OP. That makes them biased or at least a lier on one or the other story.

[Pooky 3,794]

Between AFSCME spending 87.5 million, SEIU spending 44 million and the NEA spending 40 million for a total of 171.5 million out of a total of 257 million how can the conservitives donors be outspending liberal ones by a 2 to 1 margin? The math does not add up. There can't be cherry picking going on because your so "respectible" Center for Responsive Politics is cited as a source for those numbers. So the only thing we can assume is the person from Center for Responsive Politics has fudged the numbers in your OP. That makes them biased or at least a lier on one or the other story.

Spelling: D-

Grammar: B

Mathematics: A