American Crossroads - who cares?

[^_^ 5,021]

The vast majority of campaign spending is done by candidates and political parties. Over the past year, the Democrats, most of whom are incumbents, have been raising and spending far more than the Republicans.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Democrats in the most competitive House races have raised an average of 47 percent more than Republicans. They have spent 66 percent more, and have about 53 percent more in their war chests. According to the Wesleyan Media Project, between Sept. 1 and Oct. 7, Democrats running for the House and the Senate spent $1.50 on advertising for every $1 spent by Republicans.

...

The most alarmed coverage concerns the skyrocketing spending of independent groups. It is true that Republicans have an edge when it comes to outside expenditures. This year, for example, the United States Chamber of Commerce is spending $22 million for Republicans, while the Service Employees International Union is spending about $14 million for Democrats.

But independent spending is about only a tenth of spending by candidates and parties. Democrats have a healthy fear of Karl Rove, born out of experience, but there is no way the $13 million he influences through the group American Crossroads is going to reshape an election in which the two parties are spending something like $1.4 billion collectively.

...

The main effect of this money is to make the rubble bounce. Let’s say you live in Colorado. Conservative-leaning groups have spent $6.6 million attacking Michael Bennet, the Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate, according to OpenSecrets.org, a nonprofit site that monitors spending in politics. Liberal-leaning groups have spent $6.9 million attacking his Republican opponent, Ken Buck. Over all, there have been 5,358 pro-Democratic ads and 4,928 pro-Republican ones in their race, according to the Wesleyan Media Project.

This isn’t persuasive; it’s mind-numbing. No wonder voters tune it all out. Amid this onslaught, there is no way a slightly richer ad campaign is going to make much difference.

...

There’s no evidence to suggest that campaign spending has the outsize role that the candidates, the consultants and the political press often imagine.

So why is there so much money in politics? Well, every consultant has an incentive to tell every client to raise more money. The donors give money because it makes them feel as if they are doing good and because they get to hang out at exclusive parties. The candidates are horribly insecure and grasp at any straw that gives them a sense of advantage.

In the end, however, money is a talisman. It makes people feel good because they think it has magical properties.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/opinion/19brooks.html

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

David Brooks isn't counting the money spent by these shadow organizations that essentially operate for the purpose of promoting the agenda of the RNC.

[^_^ 5,021]

David Brooks isn't counting the money spent by these shadow organizations that essentially operate for the purpose of promoting the agenda of the RNC.

Sounds to me like he is.

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

Sounds to me like he is.

In September, the RNC raised $5.7 million less than the DNC, while the NRCC raised $7.7 million less than the DRCC. In August, the most recent month for which figures are available, the NRSC raised $1.4 million less than the DSCC. The Wall Street Journal reports that, in 40 House races deemed toss-ups, Democratic candidates have $39.3 million of cash on hand, compared to $16.5 million for Republicans.

One would expect better fundraising for a year of such enthusiasm among Republican voters, but part of the explanation may be that the money that would otherwise have gone to these committees are now flowing to groups like Rove and Gillespie’s American Crossroads. In fact, fundraising has been so successful for American Crossroads and its affiliated 501©(4) that they’ve surpassed their $50 million fundraising goal with ease, and are now hoping to raise $65 million this cycle.

....

Since President Obama and the DNC have attacked Gillespie and Rove’s group, it has raised an astonishing $13 million dollars in the last week. Contrast that with the RNC, which is struggling with a budget short-fall of $5.5 million over just the last two months.

Less than a year old, American Crossroads’ fundraising haul is impressive – but does it represent the anti-incumbent feeling that we’re told is sweeping the nation? After all, Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie are the ultimate insider types: they both worked in the Bush administration.

Instead, perhaps it represents a desire by many traditional big-dollar donors to look beyond Republican institutions of fundraising, towards third-party groups like American Crossroads and the American Action Network: a shadow RNC.

http://www.frumforum.com/roves-shadow-rnc

[mawilson 2,133]

The Democrats had their turn at the trough, now it's time to step aside and let the big boys play.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

David Brooks isn't counting the money spent by these shadow organizations that essentially operate for the purpose of promoting the agenda of the RNC.

Yeah, the other side doesn't do it at all.

Soros Donates $1 Million to Media Matters

By MICHAEL D. SHEAR

Media Matters, the liberal activist group that wages a rhetorical war against Fox News Channel and others in the conservative press, will announce on Wednesday the receipt of a $1 million donation from the philanthropist George Soros.

In a statement obtained by The Caucus, the organization says it plans to use the money to intensify its efforts to hold the Fox host Glenn Beck and others on the cable news channel accountable for their reporting.

“Fox has transformed itself into a 24-7 G.O.P. attack machine, dividing Americans through fear-mongering and falsehoods and undermining the legitimacy of our government for partisan political ends,” the group will say in the statement, to be released Wednesday afternoon.

In an accompanying statement, Mr. Soros, a billionaire who has a history of supporting liberal politicians and causes, accused Fox News hosts of “incendiary rhetoric” and said he hoped that his money would be used “in an effort to more widely publicize the challenge Fox News poses to civil and informed discourse in our democracy.”

For years, conservatives have accused Media Matters of being a front organization for Mr. Soros. In May, Mr. Beck referred to Media Matters as “the left-wing George Soros-funded media machine that is now referring to me as a jihadist.” In 2007, Fox’s Sean Hannity called it “Hillary Clinton’s George Soros-funded group Media Matters.”

Officials at Media Matters regularly deny that they have ever taken money from Mr. Soros, who repeats that denial in Wednesday’s statement, saying, “I have not to date been a funder” of the liberal organization. Now, he will officially be a donor, and likely a fresh target for criticism from the right.

Mr. Soros has been a disappointment to some liberals during the current election cycle because he has largely sat on the sidelines. In an interview with my colleague Sewell Chan earlier this month, Mr. Soros said he was concerned about a Republican surge in Congress but was not participating as he did in the past.

“I’m basically not a party man. I’d just been forced into that situation by what I considered the excesses of the Bush administration,” he said in the interview. “I think they are pushing the wrong policies, but I’m not in a position to stop it. I don’t believe in standing in the way of an avalanche.”

That decision, and similar ones by other big-time Democratic financiers, has contributed to a lopsided flood of money to outside groups in favor of Republicans during the midterm elections.

The $1 million donation by Mr. Soros to Media Matters will not alter that calculus. But it could signal a return to greater participation by him during the 2012 presidential campaign. And it suggests that liberals intend to continue pressing their case against the flow of undisclosed money into political campaigns.

“We are especially pleased that in this moment of hidden right-wing billionaire money corrupting our democracy, Mr. Soros, upon deciding to support our efforts, quickly and transparently has made that support public,” the statement from Media Matters says.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/20/soros-donates-1-million-to-media-matters/

[Ban Hammer 13,710]

johnsmith killed this thread.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

johnsmith killed this thread.

Yeah, when the truth is told the LWN's shut up.

[scandal 951]

David Brooks isn't counting the money spent by these shadow organizations that essentially operate for the purpose of promoting the agenda of the RNC.

Brooks made much the same argument on Shields&Brooks tonight on the Newshour. Overall, it is a good point that he raises. The money spent on these TV ads largely falls on deaf ears. I can tell you that I tune out entirely the Mark Kirk/Alexi Giannoulis attack ads here in Illinois which drone on incessantly.

Mark Shields made an interesting counterpoint however, tying into the Supreme Court decision earlier this year which overturned campaign finance restrictions. This has resulted in sponsored attack ads to which the candidate is not required to provide the standard "I'm Scandal, and I approve this message" taglines. It allows the viciousness to be amplified with no direct repercussions to the candidates, and removes any sense of decorum from the debate. Regardless of the dollar figures involved, the attack ads this year are simply horrendous.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And, Mark, more stories today, The Wall Street Journal had one, that said of the out -- the money being spent by outside groups, that it is a union, the government employees union, AFSCME, that is spending more, by millions -- and you can look at some numbers here -- over the course of two years.

But just look at that again. And how much does all that money, how much difference does it make in the final analysis?

MARK SHIELDS: Yes, David and I have a serious disagreement here.

It makes a serious difference, and let me tell you why. AFSCME is -- AFSCME stands for the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. The reason they can spend this money is now they -- because of the Roberts court decision, they can spend their treasury money.

They used to have spend voluntary contributions of their members. That is all they could spend in federal elections. Now corporations can reach into their treasuries, which are a lot deeper than labor unions. But the point is that you know what the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees want. They want better benefits, better pay, better job security for their workers, who are public employees. OK?

If they back a candidate, you know why they are backing a candidate, because that candidate is probably sympathetic to their cause. The real explosion, Judy, is in these groups that we don't know that have "liberty" and "freedom" and "prosperity" in their name, that have formed just for this election, that have six and seven figures from anonymous givers, that go in and attack candidates and hit candidates.

And that's the lack of accountability. That's the lack of transparency. We don't know what their agenda is. We don't know who is giving. And that really does change the dynamic of a race.

DAVID BROOKS: Yes, we don't disagree about that. What we disagree about is how much it affects the election.

And so you have all these outside givers. The first thing to remember is, the outside giving is only one-tenth of the total giving. Most campaign spending is still given to candidates and parties. All these outside groups, they are a tenth. So, that is the tail, not the dog.

The second thing to be said is that the Democrats are vastly or significantly outspending the Republicans. In the tightest 100 races, the Democrats are spending 66 percent more on...

JUDY WOODRUFF: This is candidate money and party money.

DAVID BROOKS: Right. This is candidate and party money. But since that's the big -- that's 90 percent of it. That is the big share.

And then, among TV ads, the Democrats are spending $1.50 for every $1 the Republicans are spending. So, how much good is that doing them? I think very little. Because I think, if you have got a state like Colorado, where the Senate candidates are each throwing 5,000 ads at each other, if one candidate throws 7,000, as opposed to 5,000, I don't think it makes a dime's worth of difference.

So, I think we have reached such saturation levels, the money at this point doesn't swing election. It has corrosive effects in Washington in other ways, but it doesn't swing elections.

MARK SHIELDS: It changes the dynamic of the race, Judy. If one of the great reforms, very simple reform, was, I'm -- the candidate's requirement to appear on his or her own ad. "I'm Judy Woodruff, and I approve of this message."

What these people do, these hit-and-run people, they can whole dynamic of a race and the debate of a race by attacking you on grounds that are totally baseless, and force you to address that.

I mean, in other words, you've -- they have taken the campaign out from the candidates. David and I both believe the candidates should be accountable for their campaigns. They change the campaigns by changing the dynamic by attacking one candidate. And I would just point out that the spending of these independent groups is by 8- and 9-1 in favor of Republicans. And it's not in favor of...

DAVID BROOKS: Not if you throw in AFSCME's $87 million they're spending.

MARK SHIELDS: It's attacking -- it's attacking -- I'm talking about the anonymous ones.

[웃 910]

Karl rove should be in prison, and if there is a hell then he will rot there when he croaks....

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

Brooks made much the same argument on Shields&Brooks tonight on the Newshour. Overall, it is a good point that he raises. The money spent on these TV ads largely falls on deaf ears. I can tell you that I tune out entirely the Mark Kirk/Alexi Giannoulis attack ads here in Illinois which drone on incessantly.

Mark Shields made an interesting counterpoint however, tying into the Supreme Court decision earlier this year which overturned campaign finance restrictions. This has resulted in sponsored attack ads to which the candidate is not required to provide the standard "I'm Scandal, and I approve this message" taglines. It allows the viciousness to be amplified with no direct repercussions to the candidates, and removes any sense of decorum from the debate. Regardless of the dollar figures involved, the attack ads this year are simply horrendous.

Thanks for that link. Interesting perspective. I've always liked Mark Shield's political commentary for the last 25+ years.

Edited October 23, 2010 by El Buscador