How Clinton Leads Trump in the Data Game

Targeted voter data and analytics are key to winning for political campaigns and causes today. So, who has the better data armory among the warring presidential hopefuls? Advertising Age magazine recently addressed the issue by comparing Democrat front-runner Hillary Clinton and Republican primary leader Donald Trump in terms of operations, spending and expert support. Political analysts give the Democrats an edge operationally, coming out of the two data-centric Obama campaigns with a sophisticated data-gathering operation that can target voters in swing states. In terms of dollars spent, the Federal Election Commission shows the Clinton campaign pays about $10,000 a month to a top data staffer, co-founder of data firm BlueLabs, and about the same amount combined per month for two additional staffers, plus Clinton has spent around $82,000 with NGP VAN, a Democratic voter data firm, since last October. In contrast, Trump waited until January to hire two "low-profile" former Republican National Committee data strategists, per Politico reporting. But he has brought data consultants on board, too, spending $240,000 with the political data firm L2 and about $18,000 with NationBuilder, a voter file management platform. The candidates will also joust with media buys based on data analytics, and Clinton has outspent Trump for data-enhanced media agency buys so far, shelling out $9.6 million to TV firm GMMB and $745,000 to digital agency Bully Pulpit in February. Of course, spending is not the only measure of strength in the data arena. Staff expertise and experience counts, and Clinton may have the advantage there, opined political analysts. While Clinton is sure to gather former Obama data veterans and agencies if she wins nomination, Trump may struggle to attract similar data expertise from the Republican side given the #NeverTrump movement. For more: http://adage.com/article/datadriven-marketing/clinton-trump-match-data-arena/302989/

Donors Seek to Skirt IRS on Political Fundraising

As the IRS moves to limit campaign fundraising by nonprofit groups, lawyers are looking for ways to enable donors to continue to pour money into elections while remaining anonymous. According to a recent Wall Street Journal story, one option is the creation of taxable, for-profit businesses to be used as campaigning vehicles. Another idea involves donors banding together in trade associations. Neither type of group is required to disclose their members. In November of last year, the IRS proposed new rules to limit political activity by social-welfare groups, known as 501(c)(4) groups, whose donors can contribute unlimited amounts on an anonymous basis. A 2010 Supreme Court ruling allowed for companies to spend unlimited amounts of money to support or oppose candidates, and these organizations are not required to report their activities to the Federal Election Commission since they are not seeking tax-exempt status. Unlike political action committees (PACs), these groups, such as the Democratic firm Catalist and the GOP group called America Rising, do not have to disclose donors, clients, or spending and can work directly with political campaigns, though they are required to pay taxes on any profits. The taxable, for-profit entities are making it difficult to distinguish political-consulting firms from advocacy groups, experts note, even though companies must be able to demonstrate they have a legitimate business purpose other than campaign activity to avoid being defined by the IRS as a PAC. Many already do, saying they are providing services for a price, such as polling, consulting, and advertising. Meanwhile, political trade associations and charities, known as 501(c)(6) groups, similar to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, are also finding ways to raise huge sums on an anonymous basis. The IRS has already hinted it may institute new rules to regulate these types of "business leagues" for their role in campaigning. For more, see

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/irs-political-fundraising/2014/01/06/id/545392

Democrat Fundraisers Get Windfall in Shutdown Fight

So far, the Capitol Hill standoff over the budget, the debt ceiling and "Obamacare" has clearly benefited Democratic fundraisers, according to the Federal Election Commission and reports from independent and party-affiliated groups. In September, before the government shutdown, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), which funds campaigns of candidates for the House of Representatives, raised $8.4 million, topping the $5.3 million of its Republican counterpart, the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC). Similarly, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) raised more in September than the Republican National Committee (RNC) for the first time in 2013, with the Dems raking in $7.4 million, up from just $4.3 million in August, compared with the GOP's $7.1 million. The Democrats got some encouragement for their Senate hopes, too; the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) raised more than its Republican counterpart in September, with $4.6 million to the GOP $3.6 million. Meanwhile, the "Obamacare" controversy benefited independent fundraisers at both ends of the political spectrum. Organizing for Action, the group that grew out of Obama's successful re-election campaign, raised more than $7.7 million from July through September to promote Obamacare. In opposition, the Senate Conservatives Fund (SCF), co-founded by former South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint, a leader in the Tea Party movement, brought in $2.1 million in September, up from $1.5 million in August. The allied conservative Club for Growth's political action committee raised almost $127,000 in September, and its Super PAC, an independent group that can raise unlimited amounts without disclosing contributors, tallied another $282,000, which it added to $683,770 collected in August. The independent conservative fundraising isn't good news for some Republicans in upcoming elections, however. For example, the SCF has endorsed Matt Bevin, a Tea Party challenger to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. See more details at http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-10-23/news/sns-rt-us-usa-fiscal-fundraising-20131023_1_obamacare-fight-shutdown-healthcare-law

Disclaimer Exemption Sought for Mobile Political Ads

A digital political advertising firm is asking the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to exempt banner ads for mobile devices from the disclaimer language required for most political advertising, according to a report in The Huffington Post. Revolution Messaging, a digital advertising firm founded by Scott Goodstein, who was external online director for President Barack Obama's first presidential campaign, is making the exemption request, arguing that mobile devices are too small to ensure that the disclaimer naming the group responsible for the advertisement would not "dwarf the ad entirely," the story says. All public communications by political committees are required by federal campaign finance law to state, in a "clear and conspicuous" manner, the name of the responsible political committee and whether it was authorized by a candidate. In previous opinions, the FEC has ruled that text message ads under 160 characters qualify for the disclaimer exemption, as do Google and Facebook ads, so long as the disclaimer appears on the landing page reached by clicking on the ad. Revolution Messaging is hoping the FEC will extend those precedents to mobile advertising. See the full story at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/11/mobile-advertising-fec_n_3908020.html

The Dead Can't Vote, But They Can Donate

The dead can't vote, but they can give to political parties and candidates. In fact, 32 people listed on federal campaign records as "deceased" contributed more than $586,000 to Congressional and Presidential candidates and political parties since Jan. 1, 2009, according to a recent USA Today analysis of Federal Election Commission filings. Federal campaign rules allow individuals to make candidates and political committees the beneficiaries of their estates, just as they can leave money to charities. In first place among recipients of gifts from the grave is the Democratic National Committee, which garnered $245,000 from deceased donors. At the top of the list of dead donors is Raymond Groves Burrington, a Tennessee man who left more than $217,000 to the Libertarian National Committee. Current federal rules require political giving by the deceased to comply with applicable contribution limits. So an individual's estate cannot donate more than $5,200 to a federal candidate during an election cycle and no more than $32,400 to a political party each year. But a case pending before a federal appellate court in Washington, D.C., seeks to overturn limits for deceased donors. The Libertarian Party is arguing that it should be able to receive Mr. Burrington's money as a lump sum, rather than in annual installments, since "a dead person can't corrupt someone," reports USA Today. See the full story at http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/08/04/campaign-contributions-from-the-dead/2616245/