Political Ads Scramble for TV Time, Winning Formula

The TV ad battles in the 2016 political race are heating up, reports The New York Times, and we haven't even reached the primaries. At the same time, candidates and their super PACs are still struggling to find a formula that will translate ad dollars into votes. In 2015, candidates and their allies already spent nearly $100 million on political advertising, including $72 million in Iowa and New Hampshire alone, Kantar Media/CMAG estimated for the NYT story. Now campaigns are feverishly grabbing for TV ad space ahead of the primaries, and negative attack ads are on the rise. “We’re getting down to the firing-squad part of the campaign,” Larry McCarthy, the strategist making ads for Right to Rise, the super PAC supporting Jeb Bush, told the NYT. Yet the biggest spenders, such as the Bush PACs, have reaped only scant improvement in the polls for their efforts. Factors include a changed TV ad landscape thanks to media-master Donald Trump, who has generated hundreds of millions of dollars of free TV time from news coverage and debates, and a failure to break through with distinct content to the target audiences, say analysts. When Right to Rise (Bush PAC), New Day for America (Kasich PAC) and America Leads (Christie PAC), which spent an estimated $26.4 million combined in New Hampshire in 2015, all air an ad focused on Islamic terrorism, no one candidate stands out for voters. As candidates start to recast tactics and budgets (and Trump launches his first paid TV ads), 2015 TV spending is likely to be dwarfed, opined Ken Goldstein, a University of San Francisco professor of politics tracking advertising: “It seems like that was a bunch of money this fall, but that was just the sorbet before the main course. That wasn’t even the appetizer.” To see a current sampling of political TV ad messages, go to the NYT story: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/08/us/politics/ad-wars-of-2016-campaign-erupt-in-a-changing-tv-arena.html

Where's the Bang for Political Consulting Bucks?

Candidates pouring money into the coffers of political consultants, especially for TV ads, aren't getting much bang for their bucks so far in this election cycle. In fact, a December 2015 New York Times piece by Adam Sheingate, chairman of the Johns Hopkins University political science department, looked at 2016 presidential hopefuls' spending on political consulting firms and noted an often inverse relationship between dollar outlays and poll rankings. For example, Jeb Bush has spent over $50 million to date with a handful of political consulting firms (mainly for TV ads) to earn 3% support in recent CNN/ORC polls, while Donald Trump spent just $1.2 million in the same period to earn a 39% support position in the polls. A ranking of 10 Republican candidates by consultant spending through the end of 2015 has Bush in the lead, with Carson coming in second (for 10% poll support) and Christie in third place for 5% poll results. (Poll leader Trump ranks ninth in spending out of 10.) On the Democratic side, front-runner Hillary Clinton spent the most on consultants at about $18.5 million in 2015--spread evenly over TV, digital media, direct mail/fundraising and polling--but it has earned her higher poll numbers than Bernie Sanders with his $4.9 million consultant outlay. Thanks mainly to media ad costs, 2016 is on track to outdo 2012 in terms of political consulting spending. In 2012, consultants billed federal candidates, parties and super PACs more than $3.6 billion for products and services, Sheingate notes, with 70% of that amount going to firms specializing in the production and placement of media (mainly TV). As of December 10, 2015, candidates and their affiliated super PACs have already spent more than $163 million on consulting services, compared with just $43 million spent on consulting at the same point in 2012 campaigns. By the way, $45 million of 2015's $163 million is accounted for by Jeb Bush's media (TV) dollars, point out Sheingate. For more detail on spending by candidate and promotional channel, see http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/30/opinion/campaign-stops/the-political-consultant-racket.html?_r=0

Custom Digital Radio Offered to Candidates, Causes

Candidates, PACs and causes are being offered a new vehicle to ride to election day: customized digital radio stations. Houston-based company RFC will create custom-produced radio stations that "are hand-crafted and live hosted by award winning and nationally known on-air personalities." The music is designed to hit the target demographic and spoken content discusses "issues, candidates and campaigns in a fashion that builds a bridge with your mission-critical demographic." In a press release, RFC CEO Pat Fant promises, "By combining high-value content with legitimate entertainment, we can pull people in rather than just pushing information out. That increases the likelihood they'll participate and share with their friends, and that has a lot of advantages in the political world." Any examples of this idea in practice? RFC has been partnering with NASA for the last two years to create a digital radio station "Third Rock" that blends indie rock with science news. RFC sells its concept by stressing its longevity: As opposed to ephemeral radio spots, the custom station can keep on message and build support even after an election. Also digital radio is embeddable, like a YouTube video, so it can be integrated into the social media of a campaign or cause. For more, see the Tess VandenDolder story from Streetwise Media's InTheCapital at http://inthecapital.streetwise.co/2014/06/05/your-new-favorite-radio-station-could-actually-be-owned-by-ted-cruz/

Direct Mail Still Key Tool in Conservative Fundraising

How are conservative campaigns raising money in the first quarter of 2014? Direct mail take bow. A recent Washington Post story looked at the top PACs in terms of fundraising, with a special focus on the National Draft Ben Carson Committee, which raised nearly $2.4 million -- more than half a million more than Ready for Hillary. Carson is an African American former neurosurgeon whose views on social issues and "Obamacare" are favored by the far right. The Draft Carson PAC also spent $2.44 million, with half of that going to mailing list rental and a direct fundraising agency. Why go for direct mail when it is cheaper to harvest donations online? For strong candidates and super PACs, the big initial investment builds a donor list that will be leveraged for funds and votes in future, and costs are cushioned by wealthy supporters. It's a lot riskier investment for long-shot candidates, but conservatives need to tap older voters, who are reached via mailbox rather than online, notes the Post article, so minorities and tea-party-affiliated Republicans (like Carson) are taking a chance on direct mail. Asserts Base Connect, a direct mail agency for conservative candidates and causes, on its website: "Direct mail fundraising is not the fastest way to raise money, or the least expensive. But over the long run, when certain conditions are met, direct mail has repeatedly proven to be the most effective and reliable vehicle for raising money." Many conservative hopefuls are betting on it. For more, see the Post story at http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/04/17/the-draft-ben-carson-super-pac-raised-a-massive-amount-of-money-over-the-last-three-months-how/

PACs Try More Positive Ad Approach in 2014

Super PACs and other outside campaigners for candidates and causes, long masters of the attack ad, are now trying to "accentuate the positive," to borrow from the Mercer lyric. Even the conservative Koch brothers' Americans for Prosperity is making an effort to show a sunnier side, according to a recent story by The New York Times. In fact, 16% of the Americans for Prosperity spots so far this year have been positive, compared with zero positive ads in 2012, the NYT reported. By another estimate, Karl Rove's American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS, its affiliated nonprofit, have produced 29% of their ads with a positive spin to date, compared with just 1% for all of 2012. The NYT story cites a Kantar Media/CMAG estimate that 29% of all ads by outside groups have been positive this election cycle, compared with 20% at the same point in 2012. Political pundits provide several reasons for a shift to the positive so far this year: Negative campaigning actually is spawning positive ads, as PACs launch responses to other PAC attacks. Positive campaigning is also seen as useful early in the election cycle to help define a candidate for voters and provide some immunity to later critical broadcast spots. Some political strategists also cite lessons from 2012, when Mitt Romney's campaign failed to develop an effective counter to negative ads (Kantar Media estimates 62% of all spots about Romney were negative). For the whole story, see http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/18/us/politics/in-a-switch-some-campaign-ads-press-the-positive.html

Will Super PACs Outspend Campaigns in Midterms?

Super PACs are on track to outspend political campaigns in terms of ad dollars for the first time in midterm elections. Elizabeth Wilner, senior VP at Kantar Media Ad Intelligence, is quoted by Advertising Age as predicting that "exponentially more" Super PAC money will be spent this year and that, for the first time, Super PACs will outspend campaigns. Kantar Media tallies that, from Jan. 1 to March 25, the Koch brothers-backed Americans for Prosperity already has aired 14,624 spots in nine Senate races, and the pro-Democrat Senate Majority PAC has aired 6,061 spots in six of those races. The catalyst for much of the Super PAC spending? Attacks on the Affordable Care Act. As a result, even though there are fewer tight races in expensive broadcast markets and fewer wealthy individual candidates on the campaign trails, broadcast ad spending should still edge up above the midterm spending of 2010, Kantar projects. For more on which races are likely to attract the most ad dollars, read http://adage.com/article/campaign-trail/super-pacs-outspend-political-campaigns-midterm/292377/

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

2013 Fundraiser Review: Beyonce, Gators and Guns

On the last day of 2013, it seems appropriate to review the year's political fundraising events, with some raising more eyebrows than cash. An AlterNet.com article by Kurt Walters took a party-agnostic approach in choosing its categories for "The 7 Weirdest Political Money Raising Events of 2013." One popular trend was the high-priced concert fundraiser: At up to $5,000 a ticket, no wonder Sen. Bob Casey (D-Penn.), Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) and Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) were happy to whoop it up with Beyonce at the Verizon Center in Washington, D.C., for example. Several events played to the new national fascination with swamp folk, some successfully like a bayou weekend with Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) and some stepping into media jaws like Republican Florida Gov. Rick Scott's $25,000-per-person private gator hunt, which was cancelled when questions arose over how he intended to get legal hunting licenses. Illinois wins the prize for doing more with less, with a $1,000-hot-dog party thrown by Rep. Mike Quigley (D) and a "Teeni Weeni Bikini Martini" bash by State Rep. Barbara Wheeler (R), where a "one piece" rated $250, a "Speedo" merited $1,000, and bikinis (suggested guest choice) ran for $500. Notable among the 110 gun-themed fundraisers in 2013 was the BYOG (Bring Your Own Gun) target practice event (but no shotguns, please) of Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.). But the greatest irony in voters' eyes may be fundraisers held by the National Marine Manufacturers' Association PAC aboard a boat dubbed "Unfinished Business" to benefit seven members of a Congress called "the most unproductive in modern history." Unfinished business, indeed. For more political fundraising bashes and busts, see http://www.alternet.org/7-weirdest-political-fundraisers-2013

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

'Obamacare' Attacks Forecast to Pump TV Ad Dollars

Leading up to the midterm elections, TV stations are forecast to reap $500 million in political ads mainly devoted to attacks on the Affordable Care Act (ACA), or "Obamacare" as opponents dub it, reports Advertising Age. Per the Campaign Media Analysis Group (CMAG), part of Kantar Media, ACA-related ads already have put $500 million in TV station pockets from 2009 to date, and another $500 million will be spent this year and early next year. The majority of the ad spending will be aimed at attacking the ACA. The $1 billion spent on a single issue breaks all previous records, and opponents of the ACA have outspent supporters by 5 to 1 in terms of TV ads, according to CMAG. Many anti-ACA ads won't be aimed at influencing Congress but at influencing voters in next year's midterm elections, with the PACs and GOP hoping to use the issue against Democrats, especially in the Senate where the GOP wants to regain control. See the full story at http://adage.com/article/campaign-trail/health-care-fight-generate-500m-advertising/243093/

Did Some Dollars Count More in 2012 Campaigns?

A fascinating analysis by Tom Edsall for The New York Times Opinionator blog recently looked at the new landscape of campaign finance after the McCain-Feingold reforms and the Supreme Court ruling on Citizens United. It seems all the more timely now that campaign finance reform has become embroiled in the IRS scandal. His data shows that, with today's political fundraising, some dollars are worth more than others to candidates, and political parties and candidates are not necessarily aided by the flood of super PAC and 501(c)4 money. Edsall notes that, in the last presidential election, Republicans not only outspent Democrats in total, but pro-Romney super PACs and independent groups doled out over $426 million, compared with the approximately $138 million that PACs and independent groups spent to support Obama. But Obama won. Why didn't dollars tip the scales? The answer isn't simple, but Edsall's figures do highlight one key factor: Dollars did count --if you're talking about the amount of money effectively controlled by each candidate's campaign. The Obama campaign had full control of 61.4% of the $1.11 billion in total Democratic presidential campaign spending (over $683 million) and designed a strategically coherent, micro-targeted, multi-channel campaign with the money. The Romney campaign controlled only 34.8%, or about $433 million, of the GOP team's larger $1.24 billion in spending -- the majority of the dollars were under the aegis of the national party and PAC/independent fundraisers. So the Romney staff actually had direct control of fewer resources at the same time that they faced spending on a contested primary and competition from sometimes inconsistent messaging by well-heeled independent support groups. Edsall predicts candidate-oriented PACs will pop up in coming elections -- further siphoning control from the parties and candidates themselves. For Edsall's detailed analysis of presidential campaign spending, go to http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/10/in-political-campaigns-do-you-get-what-you-pay-for/

Will IRS Mess Undercut Campaign Finance Reform?

The scandal over IRS targeting of conservative and Tea Party nonprofits has at least one consequence so far: It has thrown the charge for campaign finance reform into disarray. Democrats in the Senate had planned on pushing for a new round of campaign finance reporting reforms aimed at limiting the impact of Super PACs and 501(c)4 "social welfare" groups, such as Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS, which proliferated after the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision in 2010. Now Senate subcommittee hearings planned for June are on hold, so that, as Subcommittee Chair Carl Levin, D-Mich., explained, senators can prepare to investigate the IRS issue as well. Officially, Democrats like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi insist that the IRS bias against conservative groups only underscores the need for campaign finance reform to clarify tax-exempt rules. But that is a position unlikely to win bipartisan support in Congress now. For more quotes from the politicos, check out the BuzzFeed article at http://www.buzzfeed.com/johnstanton/irs-scandal-could-blunt-potency-of-campaign-finance-reform

Super PACs Forming to Back Hillary Clinton in 2016

Super PACs are popping up to back Hillary Clinton for president in 2016, even though the former secretary of state and former First Lady hasn't announced her candidacy. Of the three super PACs formed to date (none with the formal blessing of Ms. Clinton), the largest and most successful is Ready for Hillary, set up in February. It collected almost 60,000 Twitter followers and over 55,000 Facebook fans even before its website launched, and it even earned supportive words from former Democratic strategist James Carville in a recent e-mail campaign. Its founders haven't disclosed any fundraising numbers, however. Meanwhile, other super PACs for Hillary include HILLARYCLINTONSUPERPAC and HillaryFTW, both launched by politically amateur but ardent supporters of Ms. Clinton. If Ms. Clinton decides to run for the presidency, fundraising is likely to quickly eclipse such early efforts. Her Democratic and corporate connections will create a strong, readymade donor base for a Clinton-sanctioned super PAC. Polls show Ms. Clinton leading potential opponents in voter interest, too. Other possible presidential candidates certainly aren't attracting such early PAC attention from fans -- or foes. There's even an anti-Hillary super PAC just formed: Defeat Hillary. For more, see the Politico story at http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/pro-hillary-clinton-super-pacs-not-so-super-89479.html