American Electoral Silliness

[billroper]

When the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill passed, we were told that it would do a lot to reduce the influence of big money in campaigns. Skeptics said that the money would find its way in via new channels.

The skeptics appear to be correct. The big campaign finance news in this election cycle is the proliferation of 527 groups, named after the section of the IRS Code that authorizes them. If they receive donations from individuals, they can spend the money on any sort of issue-oriented advertising that they want to, as long as they don't advocate the election of a candidate and don't coordinate with anyone running for office.

Now, you'd probably think that allowing issue-oriented ads would be a good thing, if you're in favor of free speech and all that. (I am.) But the net result of this is that we've got an incredible proliferation of attack ads which -- up until fairly recently -- came primarily from groups that (charitably) don't like Bush.

This didn't seem to bother a lot of people -- ok, it probably did bother a lot of people, but not, I suspect, most of those who like Kerry -- until a 527 group, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, ran an ad attacking Kerry. At this point, negative ads from 527 groups suddenly hit the radar screen.

Folks, we have enshrined in law a system that is designed to produce negative campaign advertising. The 527s can't say that Candidate X is good, but they sure as heck can say that Candidate Y is an evil, scum-sucking toad. The big money cut a new channel and flows freely. Should we have expected anything else?

If you'd like to read a reasonably informative article on the subject, here's one from MSNBC. Be sure to note how much money has gone to the anti-Bush groups from a relatively small number of big money donors...

(And, for my friends who live outside the U.S, are your campaign finance laws nearly this silly?)

Comments

[tigertoy.livejournal.com]

You make a good point that I hadn't seen before, that the regulations seem to be harsher on issue ads for a candidate than issue ads against a candidate and that actively encourages a negative campaign.

McCain himself has said many times that he doesn't think the campaign finance law is the whole story. It's just a start. It makes it a little more difficult for someone with a lot of money to buy influence from the candidate, but the money still has plenty of ways to influence the campaign, and if it influences the campaign significantly, it still buys an increased voice for the guy it helped win.

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

"But the net result of this is that we've got an incredible proliferation of attack ads which -- up until fairly recently -- came primarily from groups that (charitably) don't like Bush."

You're kidding, right?

Wow.

B

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-05-17-negative-ad-analysis_x.htm

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-ads8jun08,1,2647076.story?coll=la-headlines-nation

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3545069.stm

I wish I had time to do more research. I'm always saddened when I see propaganda stated matter-of-factly.

B

[billroper]

Huh? Hang on, I'm going to quote from your sources:

USA Today: "Also, anti-Bush organizations such as The Media Fund and MoveOn.org Voter Fund have been running the most aggressive ads of the campaign so far, giving Kerry less of a need to go on the offensive. The Missouri researchers estimate 84% of the statements in those groups' ads have been attacks aimed at Bush. Those organizations have spent at least $30 million so far this year on TV ads. Together with Kerry's negative ads, then, more than $40 million has certainly been spent on anti-Bush ads so far — close to Bush's total spending on negative ads."

If you read the article, the thrust of it is that both campaigns have been savaged by an equal number of negative ads, but that Senator Kerry hasn't had to pay for his out of his campaign funds because of $30 million spent by 527 organizations. How is this inconsistent with what I said above?

LA Times: "Kerry attacked Bush in several other ads during the primary season. And in recent months he has benefited from millions of dollars worth of anti-Bush commercials run by groups that operate separately from the Democrat's campaign and the national party."

The LA Times doesn't give an exact dollar amount for spending by the 527 groups, but does feel compelled to mention it.

BBC: "A US conservative group has released a series of television advertisements criticising US Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry.
The ads, paid for by a group called Citizens United, condemn Mr Kerry as a "rich liberal elitist"."

There's no indication of how much this group spent on its ads, although there was apparently a nationwide buy of some kind. We know from other reports that the Swift Boat buy (including, I believe, but am not sure, the production costs for the ad) was financed with $500,000.

The Bush administration recently claimed they'd been on the receiving end of $62 million of negative advertising by 527 groups. You are welcome, of course, to take that with a grain of salt.

Here's an article from CBS News, surely not Bush fans, noting the spending by Democratic 527s on negative ads.

And here's a commentary again from CBS News Senior Political Editor Dotty Lynch from which I'll quote:

"The Bush campaign has let this [Swift Boat Veterans for Truth] and other "independent" groups tar Kerry's Vietnam service but it is the Kerry campaign which has really hit the mother lode in the 527 department. The top four Democratic groups -- Americans Coming Together, the Media Fund, Move On and the New Democratic Network -- have spent $75 million so far this cycle.

They have allowed Kerry and Edwards to say over and over that they are running positive campaigns while they pound away at Bush and Cheney. On Friday, former Kerry campaign manager Jim Jordan through his 527, ACT, blasted "George W. Bush and his shameful record of lying about his Vietnam 'service'" and raised questions about VP Cheney’s "six deferments" while Kerry himself remained above the fray and Edwards decried negative politics."

Now if you can produce references that suggest that Republican-leaning 527 groups have spent anything near the amounts on negative advertising that the references above suggest that the Democratic-leaning 527 groups have spent on the same, then I'll cop to your charge of spreading "propaganda", even if inadvertantly.

But what I said was that the 527 groups are a machine that churns out negative advertising and that most (the relevant word you quote from me above is "primarily") of the money has been spent by anti-Bush groups. And based on the evidence I've seen, I stand on that statement.

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

(Sorry; I just got around to reading this.)

I don't have time to find sources to rebut, but I hope you're right. (Well, that's not exactly right. I'd be pleased to know that there has been more anti-Bush ads than anti-Kerry ads, because the unforunately reality is that the damn things work. And there's been so much lying, cheating, and stealing surrounding the Bush administration that it would be great to have some of it get airplay. But I'd be disappointed to learn that more anti-Bush money has been spent, because I think that the anti-Kerry stuff has been more effective and that means that the anti-Kerry groups have been more effective with fewer dollars.) As much as I loathe the negative campaign strategies of the past decade, I accept the realities of where we are today.

B

[billroper]

Ah! If you took away from my original post the idea that there were more anti-Bush ads than anti-Kerry ads, that wasn't the message that I was trying to convey. It seems fairly clear that there are more negative ads originating from anti-Bush 527 groups than from anti-Kerry 527 groups, but that doesn't necessarily give the full picture of negative advertising during this campaign season, since the Bush and Kerry campaigns can pay for their own negative advertising if they need to.

The trick here is that Bush is having to pay for his own negative ads (mostly) which allows Kerry to -- as the CBS News editor quote suggests -- say that his campaign is positive, while still getting the benefits of negative advertising. (Much as Bush can receive benefits from the negative Swift Boat ads, while declaiming against all of the 527 activity on both sides.)

I saw a count on negative ads from one source a while back that said that the Bush campaign had run more negative ads than Kerry, but that omitted the ads that were run during the primary season when there were a variety of anti-Bush ads run to benefit the various Democratic candidates. Of course, that's the hazard of incumbency -- the opposition knows who to shoot at.

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

"Ah! If you took away from my original post the idea that there were more anti-Bush ads than anti-Kerry ads, that wasn't the message that I was trying to convey."

Oh.

I was responding to this: "But the net result of this is that we've got an incredible proliferation of attack ads which -- up until fairly recently -- came primarily from groups that (charitably) don't like Bush."

And yes, I took your statement to mean that there have been more anti-Bush ads than anti-Kerry ads. I mean, it seems like a reasonable interpretation of the sentence.

Clearly the various rules different groups can operate under clouds the issues.

BTW, Kerry's latest respond ad is here. I was able to get it to run in my browser. Sadly, I don't think it's all that good. Things like the New York Times article and the essay by the rebuttal by the Chicago Tribune guy are much more effective, although they won't be seen by nearly as many people.

B

[billroper]

My apologies. Obviously, what I meant to say in that sentence -- and which is, I think, reinforced by the rest of the writeup -- was "we've got an incredible proliferation of attack ads from 527 groups which...".

I looked at Kerry's ad and agree with you, especially since McCain is supporting Bush -- while condemning the Swift Boat ads and, in a statement that I saw somewhere but don't have a link to, the 527 activities in general.

I read the Tribune article on-line today, which will save me from reading it in print tomorrow. :)

[shsilver.livejournal.com]

As a side note, MoveOn.org is not a 527. It is a PAC. There was an interesting point the other day that some 527s may morph into PACs as the election comes closer since a PAC can continue to advertise up to the election and a 527 must stop advertising 60 prior to the election (September 3).

[billroper]

Cut and pasted from MoveOnVoterFund.org:

The MoveOn family of organizations consists of three entities. MoveOn.org, a 501(c)(4) organization, primarily focuses on education and advocacy on important national issues. MoveOn.org PAC, a federal PAC, primarily helps members elect candidates who reflect our values. And MoveOn.org Voter Fund, a 527 organization, primarily runs ads exposing President Bush's failed policies in key "battleground" states.

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

Fascinating. It makes me wonder if there is any way to both protect free speech and implement any meaningful campaign finance reform. Probably not.

B

[billroper]

It's a real problem, which is why it's so difficult to solve. A lot of real problems are that way. :)