November 17, 2008

Ad-ing It All Up

The game is over. Some won, some lost, and a lot of people laid down their money.

Scores of independent groups went into hyperdrive for this election, reaching millions of people with some of the most vicious attack ads of the year. We saw new groups pop up out of nowhere; we saw old groups go to unprecedented lengths to help their candidates of choice; and we saw organized labor, corporate America and the partisan wealthy flood them all with money. For the last few months, we've tracked their moves at the Secret Money Project. We hope our reporting helped illuminate the sometimes-opaque forces of influence, and serves as a resource in the future.

While independent groups mostly stayed a sidenote during the campaigns -- particularly the heavily financed presidential contest -- they did leave their marks.

  • American Issues Project produced an ad in August that linked Senator Obama to one-time anti-war militant Bill Ayers. It kept Ayers in the mix as a campaign issue at a time when Sen. John McCain's organization wasn't ready to take that step.

  • At virtually the same time, the liberal Brave New Films made a viral video raising questions about McCain's multiple homes. The video led a print reporter to ask McCain about the real estate, and the candidate flubbed the answer, creating a new campaign issue.

  • The Clarion Fund inundated the presidential swing states with a DVD called "Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West." It was a classic example of the murky space between campaigning and issue advocacy that many of these groups occupy. NPR listeners and npr.org readers told us about the DVD, and we give them our profuse thanks. All of them all told us the video seemed meant to promote McCain. As for the Clarion Fund, it hired a new public relations firm after we aired our broadcast story. But it never clarified its financing or activities -- as, indeed, it had no need to; the fund is a 501(c)(3) charity with minimal disclosure requirements. People speaking for the fund insisted there was no partisan agenda, and said they had distributed 28 million copies of the DVD in key election states only to attract the attention of reporters covering the race.

  • The biggest player among these groups was the Service Employees International Union, and sometimes it seemed to reach everywhere in the liberal establishment. And long before the election, SEIU had already budgeted $10 million to hold their favored candidates accountable to the union's agenda in 2009.

    But figuring out what impact the groups actually had on the campaigns is a tricky proposition. For one thing, the mish-mash of tax rules, campaign finance laws and Supreme Court decisions made it impossible to know precisely how much money they spent. We gave it a good try here, by adding together all the money that groups reported spending on election-related communications since July:

    PRESIDENTIAL RACE
    Conservative Groups: $40.9 million
    Liberal Groups: $53.1 million

    SENATE RACES
    Conservative Groups: $40.4 million
    Liberal Groups: $29.6 million

    This is a vast undercount, since many groups only have to report election ads that show up on TV or radio or that explicitly say to vote for or against a candidate.We recorded $4.2 million for MoveOn.org, for example, while the group engaged in plenty of other activities and said in a press release that it spent more than $30 million overall.

    Chalk it up to a system that, for better or worse, doesn't require vast amounts of election-related activity to be reported. Money, in any case, doesn't necessarily equal impact. Many organizations spent big on mobilizing their members and getting out the vote, and that counts for something.

    But what about those attack ads? All ads and groups are measured nowadays against the standard of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the 2004 group that wounded Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry's aspirations. Nobody achieved Swift Boat status this year, though some tried hard, on the left (Brave New PAC) and right (National Republican Trust and American Issues Project).

    Perhaps the media, which hyped the Swift Boat group in 2004, learned their lesson and avoided giving any attack too much credit, theorizes John Geer, an expert on negative advertising at Vanderbilt University. Tom Matzzie, a Democratic strategist, has his own diagnosis: that the Internet has made it too easy to fact-check dishonest ads. Conservative operative Chris LaCivita, who went from Swift Boat Veterans in 2004 to American Issues Project this year, says it was just money. He says AIP simply couldn't raise enough from big donors after Wall Street crashed.

    And maybe attack groups never got a direct shot at a candidate's core message. The Swift Boat ads took aim at Kerry's war record, which he was running on. But this year, when the economy became the main issue for voters, attacks on Senator Obama's nefarious "associations" or McCain's health seemed less relevant.

    Plus, Senator Obama buried McCain and his allies with the biggest pot of money ever spent on an election. "With Obama's fundraising advantage, all the 527s kinda got crowded out," Geer says. "We're going to go to a system where the next presidential candidates are both going to have to raise so much money...that all of the sudden these people who are funding these 527s have to think about whether it's worth putting their money down."

    An interest group's goal is not only to help a candidate win, but also to ingratiate itself with the politician or party, says Steve Weissman, of the Campaign Finance Institute. Even if labor unions and such groups as MoveOn.org and Planned Parenthood didn't necessarily tip the election to Senator Obama, they dedicated a vast amount of money and resources to his cause, and now can hope that he feels indebted to them.

    Let's take a look at who racked up some chits. (Click on the links to watch the groups' ads and read about their funding and leadership.)

    PRESIDENTIAL RACE
    **Liberal Groups**
    1. SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION = $23,107,433
    2. UNITED AUTO WORKERS = $4,860,571
    3. MOVEON.ORG = $4,185,821
    4. AFSCME = $2,312,723
    5. PLANNED PARENTHOOD ACTION FUND = $2,096,495
    6. ADVANCING WISCONSIN = $2,094,687
    7. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS = $1,997,375
    8. PROGRESSIVE FUTURE = $1,496,323
    9. SIERRA CLUB = $1,213,068
    10. HEALTH CARE FOR AMERICA NOW = $1,132,085
    11. NARAL PRO-CHOICE AMERICA = $1,117,991
    12. DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE ACTION FUND = $1,021,241

    **Conservative Groups**
    1. NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION = $6,946,238
    2. NATIONAL REPUBLICAN TRUST = $6,592,925
    3. VETS FOR FREEDOM = $4,596,149
    4. NATIONAL RIGHT TO LIFE = $4,504,422
    5. LET FREEDOM RING = $3,257,939
    6. AMERICAN ISSUES PROJECT = $2,878,873
    7. REPUBLICAN MAJORITY CAMPAIGN = $1,851,120
    8. FOCUS ON THE FAMILY ACTION = $1,332,862
    9. RIGHTCHANGE.COM = $1,318,691
    10. REPUBLICAN JEWISH COALITION = $1,267,002
    11. COMMITTEE FOR TRUTH IN POLITICS = $1,192,510*
    12. NATIONAL CAMPAIGN FUND = $1,167,810

    *The total for the Committee for Truth in Politics is an estimate by the Campaign Media Analysis Group. The group argues in a pending lawsuit that it doesn't have to report its expenditures.

    The biggest spenders on the left were obviously labor unions. George Soros -- who made himself a political lightning rod by bankrolling anti-Bush groups in 2004 -- in this cycle gave $3.5 million to Fund for America, $1 million to America Votes, about half a million to other liberal groups, and that's all that we know of. Hollywood producer Steve Bing also spent $2.5 million on the Fund for America, and about a million more on other pro-Democratic groups.

    On the right, pharmaceutical executive Fred Eshelman apparently outspent Soros, dumping $5.5 million into his anti-Obama 527, RightChange.com. Other conservative megadonors include Texas businessman Harold Simmons, who gave $2.9 million to American Issues Project, and retired physician John Templeton Jr., who gave at least $2.7 million to Let Freedom Ring.

    In contrast, a few conservative political action committees were able to raise remarkable sums via strictly regulated small donations. The National Republican Trust, for example, reported spending an incredible $6.6 million on the election, despite being founded in September.

    Now, shifting to congressional races....

    Continue reading "Ad-ing It All Up" »

    12:17 PM ET | 11-17-2008 | permalink

    comments () | | e-mail

     
    • October 21, 2008

    The Scoreboard

    Barack Obama clearly has the financial advantage over John McCain when it comes to hard campaign funds. But in the less transparent world of independent groups, conservative organizations have been spending about 75 percent more money on TV time for anti-Obama attack ads than liberal groups have spent to defeat McCain.

    According to our analysis of the latest numbers from the Campaign Media Analysis Group, conservative groups like Vets for Freedom and American Issues Project have spent about $9,427,000 on TV airtime, while liberal groups like labor unions and MoveOn.org spent $5,351,000 since the beginning of July. That's chump change compared to the candidates' ad buys, but sometimes an outside attack can do what the candidate can't, or won't. For instance, we count four different groups that have run ads linking Obama to former radical Bill Ayers, even when the McCain campaign itself wasn't making that argument.

    To be sure, this isn't the full picture. Advocacy groups are spending many millions more on radio ads, direct mail, phone calls and canvassing -- and none of that shows up in these numbers. Plus, a group like Brave New PAC spent very little on TV time, but generated a lot of attention for its online anti-McCain videos. One other caveat: CMAG numbers are just estimates, and the ad-tracking service doesn't pick up the National Rifle Association's ads, and others, on local cable stations.

    To make the calculation, we excluded ad buys that clearly meant to advance a partisan agenda but didn't refer to a presidential candidate, like those from the liberal Health Care for America Now and the conservative Employee Freedom Action Committee. We even took out an American Issues Project ad attacking Senate Democrats because it didn't mention Obama. If you add those in, conservatives have outspent liberals nearly two to one since July. Why July? That's the first month after the primaries ended.

    Here's the breakdown.

    Liberal Groups
    Service Employees International Union = $1,999,602
    United Auto Workers = $1,104,206
    MoveOn.org = $1,008,080
    Planned Parenthood = $330,066
    VoteVets = $196,320
    Defenders of Wildlife = $156,575
    Bring Ohio Back = $127,436
    AFL-CIO = $123,274
    AFSCME = $82,263
    PowerPac = $79,880
    United Food & Commercial Workers = $70,841
    California Nurses Association = $60,316
    Matthew 25 Network = $8,858
    Brave New PAC = $3,293
    TOTAL = $5,351,010

    Conservative Groups
    Vets for Freedom = $3,906,472
    American Issues Project = $1,867,872
    RightChange.com = $1,475,581
    Committee for Truth in Politics = $1,056,309
    Let Freedom Ring = $652,424
    Judicial Confirmation Network = $194,283
    Born Alive Truth = $165,948
    Citizens United = $54,439
    Our Country Deserves Better = $28,711
    National Republican Trust = $25,162
    TOTAL = $9,427,201

    There's less than two weeks to go. The liberals could pull ahead -- or the conservatives could pull away. All coming to a TV screen near you.

    -- Will Evans

    8:15 PM ET | 10-21-2008 | permalink

    comments () | | e-mail

     
    October 17, 2008

    ACORN Battle Intensifies

    It's not everyone who gets accused by a presidential candidate of "maybe destroying the fabric of democracy."

    That's how John McCain described the grassroots group ACORN in last Wednesday night's debate. The next day, two officials from the Justice Department leaked details of an FBI multi-state probe of ACORN.

    And now the Obama campaign shoves back, hard. Campaign lawyer Bob Bauer said this afternoon that the McCain campaign and DOJ have formed "an unholy alliance of law enforcement and the ugliest form of partisan politics." Their goal isn't to stop ACORN, said Bauer, but to suppress the vote that ACORN is promoting. "It's a war on the voters," he said.

    Those would be the 1.3 million young, low-income and minority voters registered by ACORN -- the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now -- and the reason the group has been knocked around for months by Republicans.

    Thousands of registration forms gathered by ACORN canvassers have turned out to be bogus. Critics say the group plans to turn out droves of illegitimate voters on Election Day. The Republican National Committee calls ACORN "a quasi-criminal organization." On Friday, McCain campaign manager Rick Davis said he has "concerns of rampant voter fraud in registrations."

    The group's defenders say that a few canvassers cheat, and ACORN identifies fraudulent forms -- but by law in most states, it has to submit all of the forms it collects. There are investigations in about 12 states, although they seem to be targeting individual canvassers, not ACORN as an organization.

    The GOP wants to hang the tainted ACORN on Obama's shoulders, while the Obama campaign has found another way to link McCain with the Bush administration....


    Continue reading "ACORN Battle Intensifies" »

    5:19 PM ET | 10-17-2008 | permalink

    comments () | | e-mail

     
    October 10, 2008

    Are These Ads Legal?

    The question is ever-present in the background of independent political groups, and this year is no different.

    Federal campaign finance law is a veritable Tattersall plaid of criss-cross lines when it comes to the role of tax-exempt groups (our own FAQs on the subject are here). Now campaign finance reformer Fred Wertheimer argues that two tax-exempt groups are violating the law.

    Democracy 21 says the American Issues Project and the American Leadership Project ought to be political action committees. That would restrict the contributions they could accept and would impose stronger rules for disclosing their finances.

    AIP made its reputation with a $2-million ad buy, ominously questioning Barack Obama's ties to one-time radical Bill Ayers. The money came from a Texas businessman who had given financial backing to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth back in 2004.

    A more recent ad by AIP conspicuously didn't name any candidates, but just said, "Liberals protect corruption." It arguably could have been aimed at one of the issues raised by Wertheimer.

    Here's the deal: AIP is a 501(c)(4) advocacy group, and the law says its primary purpose has to be issue advocacy, not campaign politics. AIP is using the (c)(4) exemption originally granted by the IRS to another, defunct group; AIP itself showed up just a few weeks ago. The Ayers ad was its first. So the question is, when does its purpose get defined? Immediately, or some months, or years, down the road?

    Democracy 21 wants investigations by the Federal Election Commission and the Internal Revenue Service.

    AIP's lawyer is Cleta Mitchell, one of Washington's most forceful speakers for less regulation of political money. She responded to Wertheimer in a letter rich with sarcasm, saying she thought Democracy 21 "would be applauding AIP" for connecting the Fannie Mae-Freddie Mac scandal with campaign contributions. She also challenges "you and Democracy 21 in your purported role as 'watchdogs' of 'money and politics.'"

    And we'll get into the other group, the American Leadership Project, after the jump.


    Continue reading "Are These Ads Legal?" »

    8:20 PM ET | 10-10-2008 | permalink

    comments () | | e-mail

     
    October 7, 2008

    Some Answers On Clarion, And Still Some Questions

    Some questions were left hanging when we broadcast and blogged last month on the Clarion Fund, the 501(c)(3) charity that distributed its DVD, "Obsession: Radical Islam's Attack on the West," across 14 battleground states last month. We don't have all the answers now, but we have some new details.

    A summary of what we knew then: The obscure Manhattan-based charity had sent out the DVD as inserts in Sunday papers three days after the 9/11 anniversary. NPR got complaints from some listeners about the inflammatory nature of the video. They said it seemed like a partisan message in favor of Republican John McCain, even though "Obsession" was produced long before the presidential campaign began. Clarion acknowledged that it intended to make Islamic radicalism a campaign issue, and said it chose the battleground states to attract media attention. It also did mass mailings of "Obsession."

    On Sept. 11 itself, the video was shown at a free screening in Dearborn, MI, a city with a large Arab-American population. The organizer, Joe Wierzbicki, is a Republican campaign consultant whose clients include two anti-Obama groups.

    Since then, we've spoken with Weirzbicki, who hadn't responded to our initial requests. We've talked with a PR firm that was hired by Clarion the day our broadcast story aired. And we've obtained Clarion's initial filing for a 501(c)(3) tax exemption.

    Wierzbicki said he was recruited to handle the Dearborn event because he's from the Detroit area. He said they hoped to spark a discussion with local Muslims about the threat from radical groups, but turnout was low and there were no protesters.

    He said he was hired by Right Reel, a distributor of conservative films, but he expressed doubt that Right Reel was the ultimate funder of the screening. Did the money to pay him come from Clarion? "I don't know if they were involved," he said. "They never contacted me."

    Clarion's new PR firm took questions from us and tried to get answers...

    Continue reading "Some Answers On Clarion, And Still Some Questions" »

    6:20 PM ET | 10- 7-2008 | permalink

    comments () | | e-mail

     
    October 5, 2008

    A Race To The Bottom Of The Cesspool?

     
    “The candidates' early pledges to run high-minded, issue-oriented campaigns are a dim memory.”
     
     

    Political strategists have always understood that independent groups can deliver messages that the campaigns don't want to touch themselves. And that's the way it's been this year -- up till now.

    Some examples: Barack Obama's campaign avoided questions about John McCain's health. But Brave New PAC and the California Nurses Association waded right in. McCain's campaign didn't play up allegations about ties between Obama and Chicago militant-turned-educator Bill Ayers, but the American Issues Project and Judicial Confirmation Network did.

    But now, it seems, the campaigns want to race the independent groups -- all the way to the bottom of the cesspool. The election is just 30 days away, and polls show Obama solidifying a lead over McCain. The candidates' early pledges to run high-minded, issue-oriented campaigns are a dim memory, if that.

    McCain's running mate, Sarah Palin, took ownership of the Obama-Ayers issue yesterday, saying that Obama is "palling around with terrorists." The Republican National Committee swiftly followed with a lengthy and critical dopesheet on the Obama-Ayers story.

    Palin also said Obama "is not a man who sees America like you and I see America," echoing the pitch of a recent ad by the National Rifle Association, in which a hunter asks, "Where is this guy from?" Again, subtle questions about race and ethnicity have, up to now, been left to independent players.

    The McCain campaign telegraphed its punches via media leaks. Obama's campaign did not. With no fanfare, it put up an ad depicting McCain as too old to handle the job.

    This isn't to suggest the independent groups will be left with nothing to say. A candidate attack ad has never deterred his or her allies from joining in.

    It does make you look back a couple of months, though. Remember that McCain ad of such triviality, mocking Obama as a Britney-and-Paris type celeb?

    Now, a financial meltdown and a few presidential polls later, it looks like summer foolishness.

    -- Peter Overby

    5:12 PM ET | 10- 5-2008 | permalink

    comments () | | e-mail

     
    September 30, 2008

    September Saw Smorgasbord Of Attack Ads

    New ads and new groups burst onto TV screens in September. Independent groups bought about $23 million worth of election-oriented airtime during the month, according to the Campaign Media Analysis Group. Let's take a look back...

    T. Boone Pickens has been burning a hole in his pocket, if not the ozone. After he bought more than $5 million worth of airtime in September for his campaign advocating wind power and natural gas, we wondered whether Boone would go dark -- he was hit with big financial losses at his day job. Now the wondering is over. Boone spent nearly another million dollars on advertising on the day of the presidential debate last week to propel viewers to his plan.

    Boone, a longtime Republican mega-donor, recently said something we never though we'd hear him say: "Whether you're supporting the Democrat or the Republican, I don't care."

    Most of the other groups buying airtime tend to care a lot more.

    On the left, the Service Employees International Union is the top spender in the presidential race, with $1.3 million in airtime attacking McCain on the economy.

    On the right, the prize goes to newcomer Rightchange.com, which spent nearly $900,000 on an obtuse anti-Obama ad and just announced a new one. The 527 is run by Republican state legislators in North Carolina and a pharmaceutical executive who provides the funding.

    The runner-up on the right is Vets For Freedom, which spent close to $600,000 on ads critical of Obama in September. The latest of the group's increasingly hard-hitting ads accuses Obama of having "skipped" 45 percent of Senate votes while managing "to show up to vote against emergency funding for our troops." As usual for VFF, the ad is worded to be about legislation -- a Senate resolution praising the surge -- rather than about the White House race. Still, the ad makes several points that mirror a McCain campaign attack ad, which was deconstructed by Factcheck.org. Vets For Freedom plans a $2.2 million national buy -- starting with heavy emphasis on California, a state that has been considered a sure bet for Obama.

    You don't always need to spend a lot to get a lot of attention. Both MoveOn.org and Born Alive Truth got a big bang this month for few bucks. But Brave New Films is probably the best example. The political film company created a ruckus with an ad focusing on McCain's skin cancer. The ad was so hot it was rejected by CNN, bashed by Fox and dropped after a debut on MSNBC. Airtime cost: $5,000. Attention: priceless.

    Check out Senate ads after the jump...

    Continue reading "September Saw Smorgasbord Of Attack Ads" »

    9:55 PM ET | 09-30-2008 | permalink

    comments () | | e-mail

     
    September 23, 2008

    Liberal Groups Outspend Conservatives in Presidential Airtime Battle

    The ideal independent-ad buy has two elements: a big splash in press coverage, which is free, and just a few bucks expended buying airtime.

    The anti-abortion organization Born Alive Truth pulled that off last week. It got as much press as any group for an ad attacking Obama. But since the ad debuted Sept. 16, the group only spent about $69,000 to air it, according to the Campaign Media Analysis Group.

    Rightchange.com put out an ad implicitly critical of Obama at the same time. It laid out $420,000 for airtime, but the ad's weirdness -- a bungee-jumping middle-aged guy spouting a dense tax policy message -- just wasn't sexy enough to get much press.

    Vets for Freedom also committed $263,000 last week in anti-Obama airtime.

    But conservative groups were outspent in the past week, mostly by unions.

    The Service Employees International Union alone spent $650,000 to run an ad blasting McCain on the economy.

    Moveon.org had the same media success as Born Alive Truth, generating a ton of press before it even started airing its anti-McCain ad., but spending just $82,000 since Sept. 18. Add in relatively small ad buys by Defenders of Wildlife, Planned Parenthood and the United Food and Commercial Workers Union and the score from the last week, according to CMAG estimates, is:

    Liberals = $862,000
    Conservatives = $752,000

    But the NRA is coming to the rescue.

    -- Will Evans


    3:02 PM ET | 09-23-2008 | permalink

    comments () | | e-mail

     
    September 4, 2008

    Palin's Record On Earmarks

    My esteemed co-blogger has had a couple of broadcast pieces, on Tuesday's ATC and today's Morning Edition, examining Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin's complicated record on earmarks. We have some extra goodies on Palin's record here.

    Gov. Palin and running mate John McCain have trumpeted her opposition to earmarks like the infamous Alaskan "bridge to nowhere," which became a rallying call against congressional pork projects. But when she was running for governor in 2006, Palin told voters she supported projects like the bridge. Here's a clip of Palin at an Alaska Conservation Voters candidate forum saying, "I do support the infrastructure projects that are on tap here in the state of Alaska that our congressional delegations worked hard for."

    At another candidate forum, Palin had kind words for Rep. Don Young (R-AK) and his renowned ability to bring home the federal bacon.

    "And our congressional delegation, God bless 'em. They do a great job for us," she said at the forum hosted by the Alaska Professional Design Council. "Representative Don Young, especially God bless him, with transportation -- Alaska did so well under the very basic provisions of the transportation act that he wrote just a couple of years ago. We had a nice bump there. We're very, very fortunate to receive the largesse that Don Young was able to put together for Alaska."

    Now, it was Young who plopped the "bridge to nowhere" in federal legislation to begin with. But even that kind of influence doesn't help him these days. Not too many people are trying to cozy up with Young now that he's in trouble -- and clearly Palin has changed her mind about him.

    What kind of trouble? The 18-term Alaska congressman is under federal investigation in a corruption scandal that has already nailed several state lawmakers and produced an indictment of Alaska's other earmark champion, Sen. Ted Stevens (R).

    It's not even clear whether Young survived his primary election last week. His main opponent was Sean Parnell, Palin's lieutenant governor. The free-market Club For Growth ran ads attacking his free and easy use of federal tax money for earmarks. He seemed so vulnerable that Democrats actually spent money to help him because they thought he'd be weaker than Parnell in the general election. Palin, no longer feeling so rosy about Young's "largesse" for Alaska, backed Parnell.

    -- Will Evans

    11:05 AM ET | 09- 4-2008 | permalink

    comments () | | e-mail

     
    August 26, 2008

    Conservative Groups Rule The Past Week Of Ads

    In the independent-group battle over the presidency, the anti-Obama American Issues Project is outspending liberal groups trying help Obama by more than two to one.

    Over the last week, AIP spent an estimated $358,000 on 263 TV spots hammering Obama for his association with a 1960s militant, according to the Campaign Media Analysis Group. With the Obama campaign launching legal challenges, the ads aired in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia -- and American Issues Project has a lot more to spend.

    On the other side, MoveOn.org spent about $133,000 to run an ad tying McCain to "Big Oil" 199 times in North Carolina. And PowerPac spent only $33,000 on 87 spots promoting Obama in New Mexico and Texas.

    Still, that's not even close to the disparity in the Colorado Senate race.

    Continue reading "Conservative Groups Rule The Past Week Of Ads" »

    6:13 PM ET | 08-26-2008 | permalink

    comments () | | e-mail

     
    August 22, 2008

    Swift Boats Revisited Part 2 -- The Money

    The new ad that links Barack Obama to a one-time 1960s militant turns out to be funded by one man, someone who's spent plenty of time and money playing in the political sandbox.

    Harold Simmons, CEO of the Contran Corp. of Dallas, put up all of the $2.8 million to buy airtime for the ad in Michigan and Ohio, and paid to produce the ad as well. Christian Pinkston, a spokesman for the American Issues Project, said Simmons' name was the only one listed on a disclosure report filed with the Federal Election Commission.

    Add this to a long list of political contributions made by Simmons and his company -- a list topped by, you guessed it, $3 million to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in 2004.

    At first glance, Simmons' beneficiaries look like birds of a conservative feather: the three GOP national party committees, GOPAC, Republican Governors Association, the 501c4 group Progress for America from '04 and too many congressional Republicans to list here.

    Then it gets more interesting. This year, Simmons maxed out with $2,300 contributions to four of the Republican presidential primary hopefuls: Rudolph Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Duncan Hunter and John McCain.

    And more interesting still: two grand to a Democratic presidential candidate, Bill Richardson.

    It's even possible -- we'll know soon enough -- that Simmons might be supporting the running mate of the candidate he's now attacking. Back in May 2007, he gave $2,300 to Chet Edwards (D-TX), now said to be on the shortlist of Obama vice-presidential possibilities.

    -- Peter Overby

    6:40 PM ET | 08-22-2008 | permalink

    comments () | | e-mail

     

    Pinch-Hitting For The Party

    An unusual number of conservative groups this week put up attack ads in Senate races around the country. Among them: the American Future Fund, Americans for Prosperity, Freedom's Watch, and two anti-union organizations.

    Now comes confirmation of the puzzle's missing piece. These independent ads are running just when Senate Republicans can't afford to do hit pieces of their own.

    John Ensign of Nevada, chair of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, blames other Republican senators. He didn't name names, but issued this statement Friday morning:

    I recently challenged my colleagues to step up to the plate and help me provide the resources our candidates need to compete in races across the country -- to match the DSCC [Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee] expenditures in targeted races. It has become clear that my call has gone largely unanswered. I have no control over the timing or content of IE ads, but I have had no choice but to decrease the total budget of our IE Unit. It is still my hope that my Republican colleagues will engage in this election and help match what the Democrats are doing. If they do, I will adjust our budget accordingly.

    Both the NRSC and its House counterpart are hurting this year, compared to the Democratic Hill committees. June 30 cash-on-hand figures were $24.6 million for the NRSC, $46.2 million for the DSCC.

    When Ensign refers to "independent expenditures," he's talking about one of the more bizarre arrangements created by the campaign finance system. But it's also the legal vehicle for the national parties to run attack ads and be only semi-accountable for them.

    A party committee (say, the NRSC) puts together an independent-expenditure team, gives them some millions of dollars and -- literally -- sends them across town to set up shop. Anything the IE team does is legal, provided there's no coordination with the NRSC mothership.

    But if there's not enough money for that, as Ensign now says, the NRSC has to depend on the kindness of, well, not quite strangers, but outsiders.

    -- Peter Overby

    6:29 PM ET | 08-22-2008 | permalink

    comments () | | e-mail

     
    August 19, 2008

    For Democrats: How To Kneecap McCain

     
    “McCain is actually profoundly vulnerable to a powerful, aggressive and damaging attack on his character.”
     
     

    Democrats are in agony over the question of how -- or for some, even whether -- to run attack ads against John McCain.

    Even Barack Obama is starting to mix it up, after campaign management told its fundraising team in the spring that it wouldn't tolerate their involvement with any Swift-Boat style ads targeting the Republican nominee.

    But there's a boatload of difference between, say, Obama's issue-oriented "How Can McCain Fix The Economy?" ad and what consultant Jim Vega proposes in The Democratic Strategist.

    Here's the not-so-pretty nut of it: Trash McCain's character the same way Karl Rove and other conservatives trashed John Kerry's four years ago. As Vega puts it:

    ...McCain is actually profoundly vulnerable to a powerful, aggressive and damaging attack on his character. McCain's actions in recent weeks have provided compelling evidence for three genuinely disturbing propositions about his character, core values and integrity.

    1. That John McCain has become desperate to win this election and is willing to sacrifice his deepest principles and his personal honor in order to do it.

    2. That the John McCain we see today is only a pale, diminished shadow of the man he once was in his early years.

    3. That John McCain is allowing men he once despised and held in complete contempt to manipulate him and tell him what to do -- to literally put words in his mouth and tell him what to say.

    At first glance these statements are so strong that they sound almost defamatory. But each is supported by McCain's recent actions ... and they fit together into a single coherent narrative of ambition overcoming integrity and moral character.

    Vega is a strategic marketing consultant who keeps an extremely low profile while writing regularly for The Democratic Strategist.

    Makes us want to start a pool: How long till the first ad adopting this approach?

    -- Peter Overby


    5:05 PM ET | 08-19-2008 | permalink

    comments () | | e-mail

     

    Senate Races Burst With Negative Ads

    If you want attack ads by independent groups, Senate races are where it's at right now.

    In the presidential race, it seems that independent groups left the back-and-forth bashing to the candidates themselves over the last week. But some Senate races are humming with negative ads.

    Colorado's hot open-seat between former Rep. Bob Schaffer (R) and current Rep. Mark Udall (D) has attracted five ads from different groups this week. Conservatives have the edge with three anti-Udall ads (538 spots on the air) versus two anti-Schaffer ads (241 spots on the air), according to the Campaign Media Analysis Group.

    The New Mexico Senate race is also getting attention, with one ad against Rep. Steve Pearce (R) and another attacking Democrat Tom Udall (D). (The Udalls, by the way, are cousins.) Two business-backed groups -- Employee Freedom Action Committee and Coalition for a Democratic Workplace -- are hitting a slew of Senate races with what they hope will be a wedge issue to hurt Democrats: secret ballots in union elections. On the other side, the Service Employees International Union is running ads against vulnerable Republican incumbents John Sununu (NH) and Gordon Smith (OR).

    All in all, independent groups spent about $1.9 million on Senate races in the last week, according to CMAG. And no one is pulling punches.

    -- Will Evans

    1:49 PM ET | 08-19-2008 | permalink

    comments () | | e-mail

     
    August 18, 2008

    Ralph Reed Doesn't Want A Job On McCain's Campaign

    UPDATE: Associated Press reports that McCain raised $1.75 million at the Atlanta fundraiser. Just before the event began, Reed's spokeswoman said he was planning to attend "as far as I know." But he apparently did not.


    So says the consultant/lobbyist/former director of the Christian Coalition. But he did send out an email soliciting contributions of $2,300 to $20,000 for a McCain presidential fundraiser this evening in Atlanta.

    This wouldn't be so surprising if it weren't for the backstory on McCain and Reed.

    When McCain first ran for president in the 2000 Republican primaries, Christian conservative leaders did their best to sink him. It was the kind of campaign that's run completely off-the-books. McCain, outraged, called them agents of intolerance.

    McCain spent the next few years passing a big campaign finance reform bill. Then he began investigating lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who later pleaded guilty to defrauding Indian tribes out of millions of dollars in lobby and consulting fees. For some of those projects, Abramoff hired Reed, who had left the Christian Coalition and needed business for his new consulting firm.

    In 2005, McCain held a hearing that delved into the Reed connections -- but he didn't call Reed to testify.

    Continue reading "Ralph Reed Doesn't Want A Job On McCain's Campaign" »

    3:51 PM ET | 08-18-2008 | permalink

    comments () | | e-mail

     
    August 14, 2008

    Attack Ad Veteran Teams With Attack Book Author

    Jerome Corsi may be getting all the attention right now for his anti-Obama attack book, but there's another veteran political operative who has been toiling away to take down the Democratic candidate with a Swift-Boat-style campaign. And now, the two are working together.

    Floyd Brown, whose most famous effort was the "Willie Horton ad" that damaged Democrat Michael Dukakis' presidential campaign in 1988, has been working on a viral campaign to send anti-Obama videos to millions of voters. His main organization, the National Campaign Fund, runs the Web site ExposeObama.com, which features videos linking Obama to gang violence and questioning Obama's assertion that he's never been a Muslim (below).

    (The Obama campaign's "Fight the Smears" Web site has a special entry for Brown.)

    Brown, in an interview today, says he has two more upcoming videos based on a collaboration with Corsi, co-author of the book that launched the crippling Swift Boat veterans critique of Democrat John Kerry in 2004. The new ads are based on Corsi's new book, "The Obama Nation."

    Continue reading "Attack Ad Veteran Teams With Attack Book Author" »

    4:53 PM ET | 08-14-2008 | permalink

    comments () | | e-mail

     
    August 12, 2008

    MoveOn.org And Texas Oilman Dominate

    When it comes to independent ads targeting presidential candidates, MoveOn.org has had the airwaves to itself for the past week, according to the latest numbers from the Campaign Media Analysis Group.

    Spending about $260,000 on ads criticizing McCain and boosting Obama, MoveOn didn't face competition on the airwaves from conservative groups like Vets For Freedom, Let Freedom Ring and Citizens United, which ended their string of ads at the end of July.

    Overall, though, it was Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens who spent the most on ads in the last week: about $1.3 million to promote his wind power plan. Pickens has spent an estimated $8.6 million since July 8th.

    Continue reading "MoveOn.org And Texas Oilman Dominate" »

    5:28 PM ET | 08-12-2008 | permalink

    comments () | | e-mail

     
    August 11, 2008

    Former Swift Boat Donor Finds New Target

    Mark Udall, meet Bob Perry.

    Udall, a Democratic member of Congress from Colorado, is running for Senate this year in a race that is attracting out-of-state money from all sides.

    Perry, a Texas developer, gave $4.4 million to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to help defeat John Kerry in 2004. FEC reports reveal that the Texan dropped $400,000 this month to air an ad criticizing Udall for "wasteful" spending.

    Perry gave the money to the Club for Growth. The group said in a press release that the ad will be up for 2 weeks.

    Watch the ad:

    --Will Evans

    4:52 PM ET | 08-11-2008 | permalink

    comments () | | e-mail

     

    Whether Obama Wants It Or Not

    Though Barack Obama has asked his supporters to refrain from giving to outside political groups, one advocacy organization is going to help whether he wants it or not.

    Politico reports today that PowerPac.org plans to spend $10 million on voter registration efforts aimed at minority communities "to capitalize on Obama's momentum to benefit progressive causes and candidates around the country."

    Here's an old PowerPac.org ad from the primaries:

    So where does the money come from? Since PowerPac.org is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization, it doesn't have to disclose any donor information.

    But there are some clues...

    Continue reading "Whether Obama Wants It Or Not" »

    4:23 PM ET | 08-11-2008 | permalink

    comments () | | e-mail

     
    August 8, 2008

    If You Can't Join 'Em, Beat 'Em?

     
    “With donors discouraged, a new approach”
     
     

    At least that's the strategy for a new liberal 501c4, Accountable America.


    Tom Matzzie, formerly Washington director for MoveOn.org, today announced the group and its strategy: to scare off big donors who might contribute to Swift Boat-style attack ads against Barack Obama.


    It's a flip from four years ago, when liberals threw big bucks into attack ads of their own. With all that cash, they still couldn't undo the damage that the initially low-budgeted Swift Boat Veterans for Truth did to John Kerry.


    Now, Obama doesn't want any high-spending groups freelancing on his behalf. With donors thus discouraged, Matzzie has a new approach... and it's laid out in the jump, along with some perspective.

    Continue reading "If You Can't Join 'Em, Beat 'Em?" »

    6:12 PM ET | 08- 8-2008 | permalink

    comments () | | e-mail

     

    Welcome...

    First things first: We don't actually have any secret money. That Benjamin in the picture was a prop, and they made us give it back.

    Now, if you're still with us.... This website comes with an explanation, but there are no Terms & Conditions and you don't have to click "I Accept". We also have a tantalizing yet high-minded plea for help.

    That said, here's the short version of what we're about: Political money can be sorted into three piles -- the candidates' cash, the parties' and everything else.

    This "everything else" money is what we're looking at, where it comes from and how it's used in the presidential and Senate races. Outside groups have more financial freedom, and more secrecy, than the candidates or parties, and their combined spending will easily reach into nine figures.

    The Secret Money Project is a joint undertaking of NPR and the Center for Investigative Reporting. Your reporters are Peter Overby, NPR's Power, Money and Influence Correspondent (yes, that's really the job title), and Will Evans, money-and-politics reporter for CIR.

    So if you're interested in schemes to kneecap the opposition, strategies to sway voters without revealing where the financing came from, and sophisticated network-building on the Left and Right, welcome. We hope the project throws a little light on the "everything else" side of the '08 campaign.

    -- Peter Overby

    10:45 AM ET | 08- 8-2008 | permalink

    comments () | | e-mail

     
    August 5, 2008

    Frequently Asked Questions About 'The Secret Money Project'

    What is the Secret Money Project?
    The Secret Money Project is a joint investigation by NPR and the Center for Investigative Reporting, tracking the hidden cash in this election cycle.

    But what do you mean by 'hidden cash?'
    Well, remember the Swift Boat ad four years ago? This independently produced ad crippled Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry.

    And, this year's crop of independent ads has the potential to be equally influential, powerful and possibly damaging. With changes in political strategies and campaign law, these groups could be more important than ever.

    These groups don't have to disclose their donors and spending the same way the candidates do. Some don't have to disclose at all, hence "secret money."

    What is the purpose of the blog?
    This blog will feature independent ads that air in specific markets across the country (swing states, anyone?) and will allow you (the blog reader) to see the types of messages that your fellow voters do in other states.

    Hopefully, by seeing the ads through this birds-eye view, we'll notice any patterns that may emerge -- either through the types of themes explored in the ads, or the places that the groups chose to air them.

    Of course, the blog will also feature news and analysis from NPR's Peter Overby, who covers power, money and influence. His reporter-in-crime, Will Evans of the Center for Investigative Reporting, will also contribute.

    Can I contribute to this project?
    Glad you asked -- yes.

    Contact us if you hear from any independent groups.
    Tell us what group contacted you. How did they do it? Mail? E-mail? Ringing your doorbell? A phone call? What was the message? And which race did the ad focus on -- Presidential? Senate? House? To clarify: We're tracking outside groups -- not candidates or political parties -- just independent groups such as MoveOn.org, AARP and unions, to name a few.

    What about comments on the blog?
    Comment away! But we do have a few rules -- just check out our guidelines for comments.

    You can also interact with The Secret Money Project through Twitter, a micro-blogging service. The project's updates can be found under the Twitter name nprsecretmoney.

    Can I link to this blog and project?
    Please do!

    3:38 PM ET | 08- 5-2008 | permalink

    comments () | | e-mail

     


       
       
       
    null


     
    Peter Overby

    Peter Overby

    Blogger

     
    Will Evans

    Will Evans

    Blogger

     
     
     

    About 'The Secret Money Project'

    NPR and the Center for Investigative Reporting are following the hidden cash in this election cycle by tracking the political ads produced by independent groups. For more information, please read the Frequently Asked Questions and our discussion guidelines.

     
     

    Categories

     
     

    Archives

     
     

    Search 'Secret Money Project'

    Search for the word(s):
     
     

    Contact Us

    Use this contact form if you have a private message for The Secret Money Project.

     
     
     

    Blog Roll

     
     

    Related News Feeds

    More about News Feeds »
     
     

    Browse Topics

    Services

    Programs