The National  Memo Logo

Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.

Monday, December 09, 2019 {{ new Date().getDay() }}

By Joseph Tanfani, Tribune Washington Bureau (MCT)

WASHINGTON — Facing tough midterm elections, Democrats put aside some of their remaining scruples about the new age of unlimited campaign spending and courted unions and hedge-fund billionaires for big checks to try to salvage a Senate majority.

They spent a lot of money. But not enough.

This year, in a reversal of 2012, the big-money Democratic donors watched their investments return little on election night Tuesday. Although Republicans outspent them overall, Democrats got beaten even in states like Colorado and North Carolina where they spent the same or even a little more than Republicans.

“We just saw a national tsunami,” said Ty Matsdorf, an adviser to the Senate Majority PAC, which spent about $50 million across the country in a mostly futile effort to keep Democrats in office.

“I don’t think there’s anything more we should have done,” Matsdorf said. “Here’s the truth: Everybody knew this was going to be a hard cycle. Everyone knew we were going to face extremely strong head winds.”

Republican donors credited their success to a number of adjustments they had made since the last election cycle: more say in choosing electable candidates, investment in get-out-the-vote efforts that had been a Democratic advantage, and a late spending push.

The spending in the 2014 midterms showed how the remaining restrictions on campaign spending continue to weaken. More money moved into “SuperPACs” and dark-money nonprofits, where donations are unlimited, and away from candidate accounts that are still subject to strict limits on individual giving and disclosure.

Overall, including spending by candidates and outside groups, Republicans spent about $1.75 billion to Democrats’ $1.64 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group.

But those numbers come with a big asterisk: They don’t include much of the spending by so-called dark-money groups.

Another tracking organization, the nonprofit Sunlight Foundation, has traced about $145 million spent in dark money, but the real number is unknown. Dark-money spending overwhelmingly favors Republicans.

In Alaska, outside groups poured $40 million into the Senate race between Mark Begich, the incumbent Democrat, and Republican Dan Sullivan.

The votes are still being counted, but all told, candidates and groups will have spent about $120 per registered voter, more than double the figure in any other state — and more than $250 for every voter who made it to the polls.

Some players in the Republican money establishment say they also learned a lesson from the defeats of the last two elections: no more gaffe-prone, crash-and-burn candidates.

“We were not going to tolerate wacky candidates taking down the whole ticket,” said Andy Abboud, a political adviser to Sheldon Adelson, the casino operator and Republican mega-donor who spent close to $100 million in 2012 and ended up with a string of defeats. “Those candidates were largely discouraged.”

He said Adelson was wary of getting burned again by a candidate like Todd Akin, the former Missouri congressman and Senate candidate who became a national rallying point for Democrats in 2012 when he argued that women rarely became pregnant from a “legitimate rape.”

“All the money in the world cannot fix bad candidates,” Abboud said.

This time around, Adelson was also more skeptical of the pitches made by political consultants, Abboud said.

“We live in Vegas,” Abboud said. “We’re used to people coming here and trying to take our money.”

Adelson wanted to see less money spent on television ads (where consultants get a commission on spending) and more on the tougher work of building effective get-out-the-vote operations, Abboud said, and pressed operatives on what they were doing differently this year.

Adelson gave $5 million in reported spending to the Congressional Leadership Fund, and at least $20 million to two other groups that don’t disclose their donors, including another Rove group, Crossroads GPS, as first reported by Politico.

Abboud wouldn’t say how much Adelson spent overall, except that it was “less than $100 million.”

Republican groups invested heavily in field operations, particularly Americans for Prosperity, the organization supported by the billionaire conservative Koch brothers, which hired about 600 people to knock on doors in competitive states including Colorado, Florida and North Carolina.

Other Democrats said their get-out-the-vote efforts were overrun by a tide that swung toward Republicans in the final week.

Late spending by groups on the right helped to close the deals. American Crossroads, a super PAC that’s part of the political operation built by former Bush adviser Karl Rove American Crossroads, spent about $50 million overall this election, and spent nearly half that — more than $21 million — in key Senate races in October.

Democrats could not counter every Republican money move and had to triage between competitive states.

In Florida, backers of the Democratic gubernatorial candidate, former Gov. Charlie Crist, scrambled to come up with extra donations after incumbent Republican Gov. Rick Scott put $13 million of his own money into more advertising.

“On the Friday before the election, the campaign fundraisers turned over every rock, mortgaged their children and begged another $500,000 from donors to better compete in Miami,” Jim Margolis, partner at GMMB, an advertising consulting firm that worked for Crist, said in an email.

“Thirty minutes after we bought the time, Scott simply sent over another $500,000 to cover our move. It was like play money to them.”

Now, both sides are already thinking about 2016, a presidential year in which Democrats will be waging Senate campaigns in much friendlier states. The super PAC and outside money wars will almost inevitably escalate.

Although Democrats say they still favor campaign finance reform, there is little chance of that passing the new Senate, expected to be led by Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell, who for years has crusaded for unlimited donations without disclosure.

“Nobody likes the system. We wish campaign finance reform would pass so we could go away,” Matsdorf said. “I think our supporters, Democratic donors, decided you just have to play by the rules as they’re written, not what you want them to be.”

Photo: Ervins Strauhmanis via Flickr

Advertising

Start your day with National Memo Newsletter

Know first.

The opinions that matter. Delivered to your inbox every morning

Supreme Court of the United States

YouTube Screenshot

A new analysis is explaining the disturbing circumstances surrounding the overturning of Roe v. Wade and how the U.S. Supreme Court has morphed into an entity actively working toward authoritarianism.

In a new op-ed published by The Guardian, Jill Filipovic —author of the book, The H-Spot: The Feminist Pursuit of Happiness—offered an assessment of the message being sent with the Supreme Court's rollback of the 1973 landmark ruling.

Keep reading... Show less

Billionaires

YouTube Screenshot

After a year of reporting on the tax machinations of the ultrawealthy, ProPublica spotlights the top tax-avoidance techniques that provide massive benefits to billionaires.

Last June, drawing on the largest trove of confidential American tax data that’s ever been obtained, ProPublica launched a series of stories documenting the key ways the ultrawealthy avoid taxes, strategies that are largely unavailable to most taxpayers. To mark the first anniversary of the launch, we decided to assemble a quick summary of the techniques — all of which can generate tax savings on a massive scale — revealed in the series.

1. The Ultra Wealth Effect

Our first story unraveled how billionaires like Elon Musk, Warren Buffett and Jeff Bezos were able to amass some of the largest fortunes in history while paying remarkably little tax relative to their immense wealth. They did it in part by avoiding selling off their vast holdings of stock. The U.S. system taxes income. Selling stock generates income, so they avoid income as the system defines it. Meanwhile, billionaires can tap into their wealth by borrowing against it. And borrowing isn’t taxable. (Buffett said he followed the law and preferred that his wealth go to charity; the others didn’t comment beyond a “?” from Musk.)

Keep reading... Show less
{{ post.roar_specific_data.api_data.analytics }}