There’s more numbers available for campaign spending in the Wisconsin recall, but before I get to that, I wanted to return to the spin aspect and show you this from way back in 2011:
What if the public polls predicting a sizable labor win in the Ohio battle over collective bargaining are just flat-out wrong? An internal memo from a key labor-backed group in the state is flatly warning that the polls are “flawed” and that a big win for labor is not even “remotely possible.” It adds that the right’s messaging has “worked,” and that there’s good reason to suspect that a “massive amount of voter confusion remains,” suggesting the fight could still go either way.
“Those predicting a blowout for our side are basing their analysis on flawed public polling samples,” reads the memo, which was circulated to labor and political operatives involved in the fight by Brian Rothenberg, the executive director of Progress Ohio, which is partly bankrolled by labor. It was forwarded my way by a source.
Kasich’s anti-union law was defeated, 61 to 39. Frantic spin deliberately leaked from one side or the other or inadvertently leaked concern-memo by Progress Ohio? I don’t know. Polling on referendums in Ohio had been a poor predictor of results prior to Issue Two, so that part is true.
This is the best I could find on actual spending on ads in Wisconsin:
Walker, Republican Party committees, independent tea party groups and other grassroots fiscal conservative organizations have spent around $8.65 million to run ads in the recall campaign, from November through last week, according to data from Kantar Media/Campaign Media Analysis Group, a company that tracks and estimates the costs of campaign ads running on the air.
That’s a considerable amount more than the $5.10 million that Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, Walker’s Democratic challenger, Democratic Party committees and independent progressive groups have spent to run commercials.
“There is intense amount of advertising in the Wisconsin gubernatorial race that is chasing a minute amount of undecided voters. Attitudes are polarized and hardened in the Badger State, but with the contest so close, candidates and their allies have no choice but to go ‘all in’. That said, there probably are not a lot of moveable voters at this point,” Kenneth Goldstein, CNN’s consultant on TV advertising and Kantar Media/CMAG president, said.
On a related note, There are new rules that may help non-professionals (lowly voters, even!) follow the money in federal races. Recall that within the campaign industrial complex there are (of course) both buyers and sellers. If this is an arms race and we have very little real information on the buyers, we may be able to find out more by looking at the records of the arms dealers, online:
The National Association of Broadcasters has asked a federal appeals court to block new rules that would force broadcasters to reveal online who is paying for political campaign ads and just how much they are shelling out. The Federal Communications Commission adopted the rules last month in an effort to provide insight on campaign spending ahead of November’s congressional and presidential elections.
TV stations have been making public their records of campaign advertising buys and other community-related issues since 1938 as part of their public interest obligation.
“The public file rules are a common-sense update by the FCC to move from paper to online access to public information in the digital age,” an FCC spokesman said on Tuesday.
The new data format, to come initially from the four biggest TV broadcasters in the top 50 media markets, includes detailed information on who paid for political ads, key personnel of the groups buying ads, when political ads aired and rejections of requests to buy air time. The four biggest broadcasters are ABC, operated by Disney Co , CBS Corp, News Corp’s Fox, and NBC, controlled by Comcast Corp.
The top broadcasters would have to upload their political files to a database hosted on the FCC’s website, beginning 30 days after the rules receive approval from the Office of Management and Budget.The FCC expected the rules to swiftly gain OMB approval, in time to reflect spending during the 2012 campaign cycle.
The new rules would come at a time when political spending has hit record highs. Independent “super” political action committees have already spent nearly $126 million this campaign cycle compared with only $32.7 million spent in the same time period during the 2008 election. These “Super PACs” can raise and spend unlimited amounts to help politicians, as long as they do not coordinate with official campaigns.
Cable and the internet aren’t covered by the new online access rule.
MB
The Sunlight Foundation is running a project it’s calling “Political Ad Sleuth”, which is an effort to ID who is (really) paying for political ads this year. They need help from people willing to visit their local stations and view the information the FCC requires be made public (but not necessarily online). More info here – http://politicaladsleuth.sunlightfoundation.com/
rikyrah
thank you for keeping an eye on things like this, Kay.
we really do appreciate you doing this.
the Dems have only themselves to blame, and no, I don’t mean the White House. their dumb asses should have passed disclosure rules. The money is only part of the problem. the secrecy behind the money bothers me even more than the money itself.
rikyrah
Did ALEC Give Walker 3.4 Million for the Recall Election?
Created on Monday, 28 May 2012 21:51
In March 2012, One Wisconsin Now released a report showing Governor Scott Walker had spent more time out of the state of Wisconsin than in the state working for the citizens. One Wisconsin Now pointed out Walker used approximately 600 hours of personal time from August 2011 to January 2012. So what was Scott Walker doing?
We had a look at Walker’s expense report filed with the Government Accountability Board and found some eye-popping expenses. One of the expenses threw up a flag when we saw payments to Doner Fundraising, Inc, in the amounts of $145,824.73, $64,171.51, $51,306.40, $20,000.00, $61,344.20 between October 2011 and May 2012 for a grand total of $342,645. The thing to keep in mind here is that fundraiser’s typically get a 10% commission on their haul, so Doner Fundraising raked in $3,426,450 for Scott Walker.
Incidentally, Doner Fundraising Inc is based in Austin Texas, a state Walker has been to a number of times since taking office. The company, at last glance, does not have a website to reference, but the company is owned by one Katherine (Kate) Doner. According a number of online references to the business, Kate Doner is the who’s who in fundraising in Texas and has a reputation of bringing in the big money.
Kate Doner was principal staff for the the State Policy Network; SPN is a professional service organization for the “state-based free market think tank movement.” SPN was a “Chairman” level sponsor of 2011 American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) Annual Conference, with a required sponsorship level of $50,000 in 2010. ALEC is also an Associate Member of State Policy Network, as of Aug. 11, 2011. The mission of SPN, according to its May 2006 newsletter, is “to provide strategic assistance to independent research organizations devoted to discovering and developing market-oriented solutions to state and local public policy issues.”
It’s no secret that much of the legislation Scott Walker forced upon Wisconsinites was designed by ALEC, but it now appears they are paying Walker for his services. Walker’s jaunts around the USA seem to align with stops to give speeches in states with SPN think tanks. Has ALEC changed from paying “Scholarships” to political donations for speeches? It would answer the question of why so many out of state companies have such an interest in Wisconsin politics.
http://www.politiscoop.com/us-politics/wisconsin-politics/1417-did-alec-give-walker-3-4-million-for-the-recall-election.html
terraformer
Interesting how those crying the loudest about this FCC ruling are apparently concerned most about people taking their business elsewhere if (for example) they discover Target or some other entity has provided $X of funding for a particular candidate or cause. Interesting in the “no shiat” category – but I suppose free speech without consequence is for those with the loudest voices and the deepest pockets. They’re “people too” you know.
Kay
@rikyrah:
I actually think Citizens is a great issue for liberals, and democracy enthusiasts, long-term. It polls really poorly now, and it is only going to get worse, particularly if courts throw out all the state regulations. You think it’s bad now, wait until billionaires can buy a low-population state like Montana easily and cheaply.
People get that this is ruinous. They really do. It’s a “70% issue”.
The problem is we’d have to run ads on it, right? :)
We’ll have to think of something.
Roger Moore
@rikyrah:
In case you forgot, the Democrats tried to pass disclosure rules, but they were blocked by a filibuster in the Senate. One more example of how “60 is the new 50” is ruining the country.
Odie Hugh Manatee
Virginia governor on MSNBC fluffing Walker while Chuck Todd tosses softball questions with no followup to challenge the straight out lies. If Chuck Todd was toilet paper you would have more shit on your ass after wiping with him.
If he was in a toolbox he would be the tool that cost a shitload of cash and doesn’t work on a damned thing.
He’s a fucking worthless fake horse race announcer.
TheMightyTrowel
FSM bless you, Kay. As much as I love JeffreyW’s photos and recipes, THIS is the sausage I like to see getting made.
gene108
@Kay:
There’s so much discontent, but I don’t see it being channeled into a backlash against the powers that be.
Republicans have driven enough other wedge issues into the electorate that even though 70% of people favor higher taxes for the rich, rolling back Citizen’s United, and raising the minimum wage, 45%+ of people will still vote for Republicans, who are opposed to doing those things.
catclub
@Roger Moore: Aren’t they (Senate filibusters) also blocking members nominated to the FEC so it cannot operate, at all?
jharp
What in the fuck is this supposed to mean? Seems preposterous to me.
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker to win the 5 June 2012 recall election
92.1% CHANCE
http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contract/?contractId=759686
Cato
Walker is on the verge of an unprecedented victory over the Union thugs.
This will be the beginning of the end for Public Worker Unions in America, and Walker will be the frontrunner for 2020.
Kay
@Cato:
I love your big pronouncements. You’re like a Newt Gingrich wannabe.
Origuy
@jharp: Remember that the InTrade number reflects the betting (as that’s what it is) that an election will have a certain outcome. 92.1% of the bets are that Walker will win; it has nothing to do with the margin of victory. Remember, too, who has money to bet on InTrade.
jharp
@Origuy: I am aware that it does not have anything to do with the margin of victory. Still. A 92.1% chance of winning seems ridiculous. As I figure $8 on the Democrat wins you $100. And that seems like a darn good bet.
I also am aware that Intrade contracts are very thinly traded and often a very poor indicator.
jwb
@jharp: If you don’t believe the numbers, you could place a bet… Myself, I think the race is very much an uphill battle. I wouldn’t place the chances quite in the high 90s range, but I’d certainly give Barrett no more than a 40% shot of winning, and I’m guessing Walker will get 51-52%, perhaps more if all the sniping between the DNC and the locals ends up having the effect of depressing turnout. The reason I’ve thought this was a dicey proposition from the beginning stemmed not only from Walker’s approval rating, which has mysteriously hovered in the high 40s despite all the bad behavior, but also because of the proxy of the state supreme court race last year. Whatever else you might say about them, the GOP in WI have shown themselves to be reliable voters.
jharp
@jwb:
You’re right. I should. If my local bookie would take the bet I’d do it right now.
However, due to laziness and it being a hassle to get set up I won’t bother.
By the way, is it legal to bet on elections?
Mnemosyne
@gene108:
IMO, this is part of the success of the Republican strategy of disabling the government — there is no backlash because people have no hope that a more functional government will be the result of a backlash. People think that a backlash will only make things worse, so it’s safer to bitch and moan about it than to take the chance that a backlash wrecks the few remaining working parts of the government.
Kay
@Cato:
14 points in Michigan, Cato. That’s one of Mitt Romney’s home states.
We are going on to VICTORY! :)
Two can play at this threat game, Cato. I’m going to start saying “VICTORY!” all the time, because that means I win.
gene108
@Mnemosyne:
Yeah, but Republicans are feeding that belief by refusing to allow government to function to its fullest capacity.
You no longer are going to have a situation like the New Deal, when people thanked the government for saving their skins, despite the fact people have benefited from generations worth of government expansion, such as Medicare, unemployment insurance, Obama’s extension of unemployment benefits, etc.