How are House and Senate candidates' war-chests faring this election cycle? The animations below show who has been pulling further ahead, and who has been closing fund-raising gaps as the races mature.

Itemized contributions, which are reported to the FEC along with the date the contributions were made, have allowed us to reconstruct a detailed accounting of the funds available to candidates over time. Beginning with the first quarter of 2011, we looked at all itemized contributions made to candidates in competitive races (rated by Cook as Likely, Lean or Toss up within the last month) reported to the FEC up through the end of the second quarter of this year (the most recent filing deadline). This does not include Independent Expenditures supporting or opposing candidates by outside groups, nor "dark money" expenditures from 501 (c) organizations like Crossroads GPS.

These animations show the evolving status of the funding landscape in competitive Senate and House races through the second quarter of 2012. The Democratic funding advantage is displayed on the y-axis; bars with positive values indicate that the Democratic candidate leads in fund-raising, while a negative value indicates that the Republican candidate leads. Races are colored according to the party which previously held the senate seat, either as an incumbent running in this cycle or a retiring senator.

Money in Senate races over time:

The time series animation above highlights a few trends. The first is that the party that currently controls the seat tends to lead in funding. This is unsurprising, given incumbents’ inherent fund-raising advantages. North Dakota and Hawaii are interesting exceptions to this. (Races can be highlighted by clicking their check-box on the right of the graph.) A partial explanation is that both races are for open seats. So current democratic candidates do not benefit from true incumbency advantages in fund-raising potential.

Another notable pattern we see is that challengers who join the race later tend to fund-raise faster than the incumbent once they join the race. Massachusetts is a particularly strong example of this effect, where Democratic challenger Elizabeth Warren got into the race comparatively late, but once she did, she caught up with incumbent Senator Scott Brown (R) quickly. This also occurred somewhat in Virginia, Hawaii, Ohio and Nebraska.

Below is a similar time-series chart for competitive House races. This graphic also displays the Democratic funding advantage in each race, based on itemized contributions reported to the FEC through the second quarter of 2012. Once again color of the bar indicates which party controlled the seat in the prior Congress. New seats created by redistricting in which neither party has historical control are denoted by green.

Money in House races over time:

The major trend visible above is that in House races, funding gaps between parties seem to grow over time. Once again, candidates trying to hold a seat (e.g. a democrat running in a district in which the seat was controlled by the democratic party in the last cycle) tend to do better in terms of fund-raising than candidates trying to flip a seat.

This effect is not determinative in all cases, however. In in the AR-04, AZ-01, CA-09, CA-47, IN-02, MD-06, NC-13, and the OK-02 candidates challenging for a seat previously held by the opposing party are out performing the candidate from the incumbent party.

We also see a "rebound effect" similar to what was observed in the Senate races, in which money comes in faster later on to overcome initial leads in some of the races. The FL-22, IL-08, MA-06, NC-08, and the NV-03 are all interesting to watch in this regard.

As these races continue and more data is available, graphics of this kind will become increasingly informative. Ultimately we will be able to pair this time-series funding data with time-series polling. This will provide a window into how changes in funding advantages and changes in polling leads are correlated.

It’s August and that means soon it’ll be back to school for students and teachers. Even if you have long put away your TI-84 Calculator or finally paid off your student loans, it’s still never too late to pick up a new skill.

Get ready to sharpen your figurative pencils and sign up for Sunlight Academy, our new interactive training portal that provides instructional and educational resources to make government more transparent and accountable. So whether you are an investigative journalist trying to get insight on a complex data set, an activist uncovering the hidden influence behind your issue or a congressional staffer in need of mastering legislative data, our transparency training program will teach you how to better connect the dots and make our tools and resources work for you.

The modules on offer at the Sunlight Academy are diverse. Ever wondered how to create a pivot table to analyze government data? Need help understanding the different lobbying reports? Or what exactly are APIs (and why do we talk about them so often)? Watch this tutorial to find out. After you have finished a lesson, don’t forget to mark the module as “completed” to earn prizes and other rewards.

Online courses are a popular, helpful and low-cost (zero, for Sunlight Academy!) way to boost your knowledge in the workplace or classroom. In fact, the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation just released a new report indicating that newsrooms are eager for digital learning opportunities.

Sunlight Academy aims to share the knowledge and expertise of the Sunlight Foundation, but we need your help to keep the courses fresh and relevant. Email tutorial suggestions to  training@sunlightfoundation.com.

In the meantime, sign up for an account at Sunlight Academy and check back often for new training lessons and events.

Never stop learning!

As the Senate this week takes up the DISCLOSE Act, a bill that Sunlight and other open government groups are supporting, it’s worth enumerating the reasons why. Let’s start with $115 million.

Call it a very conservative estimate of the 2012 disclosure gap. Sunlight calculated it by totaling what we know about just two of the most prominent 501(c) groups with secret donors have spent ($127 million) and the spending that all such groups have actually reported to the Federal Election Commission ($12 million).

It likely represents just the tip of a dark money iceberg that’s on a collision course with the all-American ideal that democracies should be transparent and that everyone’s vote should count equally.

The much-discussed super PACs may be able to collect money in unlimited amounts. But they – just like politicians and political parties – have to make their contributors public in regular reports to the Federal Election Commission.

The real X-factor in this year’s elections: the nonprofit tax-exempt organizations that so far have spent hundreds of millions and are preparing to spend hundreds of millions more to influence the outcome. These groups, known as 501(c)s, do not have to disclose the monied interests behind them. And in some cases, they never file so much as a sheet of paperwork with elections officials.

How much they’ve all spent so far is unknown. Federal Election Commission rules only require them to disclose the political spending they make 30 days before a primary or 60 days before the November election. Any ads they buy, phone banks they underwrite, or door-to-door operations they finance outside of those windows are not ours to know for now.

Or anytime soon: The Internal Revenue Service gives such groups up to eleven months to file their publicly-available tax returns. That means some of these organizations won’t have to disclose how much they raised or spent in 2012 until November 2013. And it bears repeating: they will never have to disclose donors.

This is highly troubling because it means that our elections are slipping into a dark place where voters have less and less of an idea who is behind the increasingly ubiquitous, negative and deceptive messaging, and what their motives are.

 

Super PACs, 501(c)s and the new campaign landscape

The role of super PACs was a dominant theme in media coverage of the Republican presidential primaries—including the millions that casino magnate Sheldon Adelson and his family poured in to support former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and the millions that investor Foster Friess contributed to keep Rick Santorum alive in the Republican primary.

As of this writing, super PACs have disclosed $240 million in contributions and $140 million in expenditures. New numbers come in on July 20. (See our primer on super PACs here.)

We know this because super PACs have to disclose their expenditures and contributions on a semi-regular basis, giving journalists and others watchdogs plenty to look through. Still, often it’s too late. Throughout the primaries, elections took place before voters learned which millionaire donors were behind the ads they saw.

We know far less about the activities of the 501(c) nonprofit organizations that are spending to influence elections with no requirement that they disclose their donors.

Unlike political action committees, super PACs and 527 groups, 501(c) groups are not considered political committees by the FEC. Which means that what they have to disclose is quite limited, giving reporters and watchdogs less fodder for investigative stories.

Under the tax code, 501(c)(4) groups are technically “social welfare” organizations, and they enjoy a tax-exempt status as long as they devote more than half of their resources towards “social welfare” purposes. That means that 49.9% of their resources can still go to election activities, including electioneering communications (defined as issue ads that air close to an election). The remaining 50.1% of that money can’t be explicitly election-related. But it can go towards “public education” and “lobbying” – terms that have so far been defined loosely enough to cover many things that ordinary people might consider political. They even include “issue ads” that air outside the 60-day window before the general election (or 30 days before the primary) during which they would have to be disclosed.

These nonprofit organizations do file tax returns with the Internal Revenue Services. The returns, called 990s, are publicly available. But they provide only general information about revenues and expenditures, officers and directors and top contractors. Though they do report their donors to the IRS, that information is not made public.

And because organizations can claim 501(c)(4) status at any time, it’s entirely possible that the only paperwork they’ll be required to file will list just a treasurer—who could be nothing more than an accountant or an attorney with no other connection to the group—and a post office box for an address. In other words, groups with almost no footprint could spend millions late in the campaign to influence the race.

It’s also important to note that 501(c)(4) organizations have been around for almost 100 years (they were created as part of the 1913 tax law). The vast, vast majority are legitimate social welfare groups, such as volunteer fire departments, Rotary clubs, veterans’ organizations, and other community-oriented groups that don’t get involved in politics.

And 501(c)(4) groups like the National Rifle Association and the Sierra Club have long been politically active in support of particular issue for years

But a new class of what appear to be nakedly partisan 501(c)(4) groups such as Freedom’s Watch, the American Future Fund and Progressive Future began appearing in the 2008 election cycle.

They appeared in wake of the 2007 Supreme Court FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life decision, which said it was okay for 501(c) groups to run issue ads without disclosing their donors, as long as they were “independent” of the campaigns.

Since Citizens United cleared the way for 501(c) non-profit corporations (along with for-profit corporations and unions) to also spend on independent expenditures, new 501(c)(4) groups like Crossroads GPS are now spending not in the millions, but the tens, and maybe even the hundreds, of millions.

Additionally, the Chamber of Commerce, a 501(c)(6) organization (a tax-exempt trade-association) and several labor unions (classified as 501(c)(5) organizations) are also actively spending, as they have in previous cycles. Like 501(c)(4)s, these groups do not have to report their donors to the FEC, and can now run issue ads and independent expenditures.

 

Two campaign finance dogs that didn’t bark - yet

Interestingly, two of the greatest super PAC-related fears among campaign finance observers have not yet come true. But the reasons why point to developments we should fear even more.The first fear was that big corporations, now free to spend unlimited amounts on politics in the wake of Citizens United, would indeed pour these unlimited sums into super PACs.

This hasn’t happened. As far as we can tell, the biggest corporate contribution to a super PAC came in 2010, when MGM Resorts International gave $300,000 to Patriot Majority PAC, which received the majority of its funding from labor unions.

Nothing close to that has happened this cycle. Looking through the files, we see, for example, that the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) gave $10,000 to the now apparently defunct Rebuilding America super PAC and AT&T’s federal PAC gave $5,000 to American Crossroads, among a few other smallish donations. But nothing like the predicted tsunami.

The most likely reason is that corporations with public brands don’t particularly want to be seen as political. The case of Target – in which the company’s CEO wound up publicly apologizing for a $150,000 donation in 2010 to an outside group supporting an anti-gay gubernatorial candidate in Minnesota – has been seen as a cautionary tale.

Corporations want to keep their donations secret because they don’t want to risk alienating consumers with different politics. What this means is that their money is probably going directly to 501(c) organizations, which don’t disclose their donors.

The second fear was that most of the money contributed to super PACs would come from 501(c)(4) organizations that would effectively serve as money-laundering vehicles. Big corporations would give directly to an organization like Crossroads GPS, a 501(c)(4), which does not have to disclose its donors. Then Crossroads GPS would give directly to an affiliated super PAC like American Crossroads, which does disclose its donors. However, this transfer would show up only as “Crossroads GPS” – effectively anonymizing the corporate contributions.

But this hasn’t really happened either. Crossroads GPS doesn’t show up once in the list of donations to American Crossroads. Democratic Priorities USA (a 501(c)(4)) has only made two transfers adding up to $215,000 to the Priorities USA Action super PAC. The only major super PAC that’s funded primarily by a 501(c) is the NEA Action Fund, which has received almost $3.5 million from the 501(c)(5) National Education Association, one of the major teachers’ unions.

Instead, it appears that the 501(c)s are just going ahead and spending the money themselves. So far, Crossroads GPS has boasted $83 million of political advertising on its own website (which we’ve compiled here through July 5), as compared to just $3 million that American Crossroads has made in independent expenditures. NPR recently reported that through March 2012, 80% of Crossroads-related donations went to Crossroads GPS, not American Crossroads.

This is likely a sign that the 501(c) groups have realized they don’t need to give to the super PACs to run political ads. They can just do it themselves, and with fewer reporting hassles. It looks like they are simply cutting out the middle man. The problem is, we could at least sort of follow what the middle man was doing. Now we know even less.

 

New push for disclosure

There has been an ongoing battle as to whether the 501(c) groups that run political ads can continue to get away with not disclosing their donors, given that they appear to be acting as political committees. In May, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court upheld a lower court ruling to require more comprehensive disclosure of “electioneering communications” (ads that mention federal candidates without explicitly urging viewers to vote for or against a specific candidate) and their donors.

The case, Van Hollen v. FEC, argued that the FEC improperly narrowed its own disclosure rules by saying that organizations like 501(c)s would have to disclose only those donations that were specifically earmarked for electioneering communications (which pretty much never happens).

Our best guess, however, is that even if the courts insist on it, the perpetually deadlocked FEC will be unlikely to ever get around to complying, which means that we won’t learn the donors of 501(c) groups running electioneering ads anytime soon. However, as a precaution, the Chamber of Commerce is reportedly switching its electioneering communications to independent expenditure ads to keep its donors secret, should the FEC for some reason miraculously adopt new electioneering communications disclosure rules. Other groups may be doing this as well.

It is worth noting a certain irony here. Independent expenditure ads are more explicitly political than issue ads, since they urge a vote for or against a specific candidate, rather than merely mentioning the candidate. So, in order to avoid disclosure, the Chamber is shifting to an even more direct form of political advertising.

Still, despite all the opacity surrounding 501(c) campaign activity, there are a few things we’re reasonably sure of.

 

A few things we think we know

1. Current cycle dark money reported to the FEC through Q1 2012: $12.4 million

As we noted last in June on the reporting blog, “So far this year, groups that do not disclose their donors, and legally are not required to do so, have reported almost $12.4 million in political spending to the Federal Election Commission.” This includes $1.7 million from the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, and $1.5 million from The American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees (AFSCME).

It also includes $3.3 million from the Chamber of Commerce and $256,000 from Crossroads GPS.

However, as we noted, that number, “does not include contributions made by dark money groups to super PACs, which register with the FEC and disclose their donors…Nor does it include spending on electioneering communications outside the window in which such political advertising is reported to the FEC.”

In other words, all we were able to report were the issue ads run within 30 days of a primary election. Which is almost certainly a sliver of the total activity.

2. What a few groups themselves have reported (at least $115 million) and promised to raise (close to $1 billion)

By our count, Crossroads GPS has announced ad buys totaling $83 million so far. If their promises are to be believed, they’re only getting started. Karl Rove’s team has claimed to have already raised at least $100 million and has a goal of $240 million in mind.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce president Tom Donohue has publicly stated that his group will spend more than $50 million. The Chamber began spending in March in 19 races, earlier than it ever had before. Politico is reporting that the “U.S. Chamber has a goal of $100 million.”

Americans for Prosperity, founded by the Koch Brothers, has reportedly spent $32 million and counting, including a $9 million ad buy targeting Obama in response to the Supreme Court healthcare ruling. Politico is reporting that Americans for Prosperity is aiming to raise about $400 million. Politico also has estimated some totals for a few smaller groups, bringing its total of promised spending up to about $1 billion.

The Washington Post, using political ad spending data from Kantar Media, has tallied $222.6 million on presidential ad spending through July 10, including $29.2 million for American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS combined, and $14.9 million for Americans for Prosperity. Unfortunately, the Post only looks at presidential spending, and does not always distinguish between groups that disclose donors and those who don’t.

It’s also possible to search Time Warner Cable’s “Political File” for political advertising schedules, which will cover ad buys for 501(c) organizations along with political committees. But again, this only gives us at best a partial picture, since Time Warner is not the only cable provider. It is also not a particularly easy way to track the spending.

3. Dark money reported to the FEC in the 2010 cycle: at least $126 million

Based on FEC disclosures, Sunlight counted at least $126 million from outside groups that don’t disclose their donors in the 2010 election cycle, most prominently the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Future Fund, and Crossroads GPS.

This is a big number, but since the disclosures are limited to electioneering communications within 60 days of the general and 30 days of the primary elections, these numbers are almost certainly on the low-end. Still, they serve as a bottom threshold of what we might expect in the 2012 election.

4. The few donors who have come to light

Though these 501(c) groups have largely kept their donors secret, a few big donations have been reported.

Sheldon Adelson has reportedly given $10 million to Crossroads GPS and may be giving another $10 million. He has also reportedly promised to give another $10 million to Americans for Prosperity, and has said he may give $100 million total before the cycle is over. This information is only available because Adelson has not been particularly coy about his contribution. He seems to like the attention. Unfortunately, we can’t build a disclosure system around attention-seeking billionaires.

Additionally, the Center for Responsive Politics identified more then $100 million in donations to nonprofit organizations going back to the 2010—mostly coming from other nonprofits that don’t have to disclose their donors

We also know that the insurance giant Aetna contributed $4.05 million to the Chamber of Commerce and $3 million to the American Action Network last year. The company, however, appears to have disclosed this information by accident. They were certainly not required to do so.

A recent New York Times analysis of the role of 501(c) groups reported on donations from Prudential Financial, Dow Chemical, and Merck to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. As the article noted, “There is growing evidence that large corporations are trying to influence campaigns by donating money to tax-exempt organizations that can spend millions of dollars without being subject to the disclosure requirements that apply to candidates, parties and PACs.”

5. Outside spending is becoming the new norm

Over the last three elections, the amount of outside spending has grown dramatically. Over at the Center for Responsive Politics, Bob Biersack documented the growth, showing that total FEC-reported outside spending had risen from $20 million in 2004 to $120 million in 2012 through April of those cycles, with most of the money coming in the form of independent expenditures.

Presumably, candidates would prefer to let others do the dirty work of attacking their opponents and remain above the fray themselves. That’s why these independent expenditures are becoming more popular. Biersack’s figures, however, do not include 501(c) groups.

Summing up what we know

So if we total up what we think we know on the spending side, that’s $83 from Crossroads GPS, $32 million from Americans for Prosperity, and $12 million in what groups have reported to the FEC. That’s $127 million. Already that’s more than what we counted in 2010 for dark money.

On the contributions side, we’ve also got $240 promised by Crossroads, maybe $300 million, and more than $50 million, maybe $100 million by the U.S. Chamber.  Plus another $400 million from Americans for Prosperity. That’s as much as $900 million for just three groups.

But we know there are more groups out there. And these figures may or may not represent anything close to a complete picture.

 

What we don’t know

1. The spending 501(c)s have NOT reported to the FEC

As described above, our reporting group found only $12.4 million in FEC-reported spending from groups that do not disclose their donors through the first quarter of this year. As we’ve said, we have good reason to suspect there is significantly more activity not being reported.

We know what these groups have said, what they’ve told reporters, what they’ve announced on their websites, and what Kantar Media has tracked for their ad buys.

While we have somewhat of sense of what Crossroads GPS, the Chamber of Commerce, and Americans for Prosperity are doing, we know much less about other major players from 2010. For example, while both the American Action Network ($21 million in reported spending in 2010 and the American Future Fund ($9.6 million in reported 2010 spending) appear to have spent some money in 2012, they haven’t announced how much they plan to raise or spend.

Without a central reporting system in place, there is now way to keep accurate tabs on the spending. Our best guess can only be a guess.

2. What other companies (besides Aetna) and other rich donors (besides Adelson) are giving

We know that Aetna – a politically active company – donated $7.05 million to 501(c) groups. Could other companies be doing the same?

If we assume 50 companies gave at the same level, that’s $350 million going to 501(c) groups. No major company has shown up in a super PAC filing, though some have given to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Are they putting their money into other 501(c) groups?

We can also infer something from Mitch McConnell’s recent rhetorical gymnastics to protect continued secret donations in the face of all logic. We can guess that there are some important big donors who very much would like to keep their donations secret, and McConnell will go to any length to do it.

 

What to do: Pass the DISCLOSE Act

The best thing we can do right now is pass the DISCLOSE Act. The bill will create robust reporting requirements for super PACs, corporations, unions and nonprofit organizations that decide to make campaign expenditures. It will also require reporting of transfers by those groups to others making such expenditures, to prevent the money laundering that makes it easy to hide huge campaign contributions.

The DISCLOSE Act peels away the layers hiding the true sources of money behind electioneering communications. It would require Super PACs and 501(c)s, and any other outside group spending $10,000 or more on election-related activities, to disclose within 24 hours any donor who has given more than $10,000 to the organization. To eliminate the possibility of contributions being laundered through shell organizations, transfers between organizations are also subject to disclosure, if the transfers are made to fund campaign-related spending.

The DISCLOSE Act will also require ads to contain disclaimers by the top officials of such groups, similar to the stand by your ad mandates required of candidates. In addition, shareholders and members of outside groups will be informed of campaign spending, and lobbyists will be required to report their spending on independent expenditures and electioneering communications.

 

Conclusions

All signs point to 2012 being the most expensive election ever. But it will be also be the hardest election in which to track spending since the creation of the modern campaign finance reporting system forty years ago.

We increasingly have a campaign finance system in which large corporations and wealth donors can influence elections anonymously, working through nonprofits.

This is not good for the intellectual vibrancy of our democracy. In order for a democracy to function well, citizens need to be able to adequately evaluate political information. A key part of evaluating information is knowing where the information comes from, who is behind it, and what their intentions are.

As James Madison once warned, “a popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy or perhaps both.”

Perhaps our concern is best expressed by Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote in a concurring opinion in Doe v. Reed (a 2010 case upholding a Washington state disclosure law) that, “requiring people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed.”

Democracy itself is an act of civic courage. The Declaration of Independence wasn't signed by Anonymous. Those who sign the big checks should have the very same courage in their convictions.

Special thanks to Alex Engler for his help researching this post

 

Harried campaign finance dorks who spend the 20th of each month huddled over a terminal window hoping the next 43,558-page election disclosure report doesn't break their parsing code have one less thing to worry about going wrong: today the Federal Election Commission announced they're providing an RSS feed of the latest filings.

It's a small step forward--and, full disclosure--one that the Sunlight Foundation asked for a few months ago at a public meeting. But it's important nonetheless because it acknowledges that time-sensitive data needs to be presented in a convenient machine readable format. Until now, real-time campaign finance sites (like Follow the Unlimited Money) had to regularly ignore the FEC's policy against web crawlers querying their campaign finance search and parse a page of human readable results. A few overzealous bots from a variety of news organizations were blocked in recent months for reading data too quickly. And the reliance on human-readable results meant that any formatting change might break a campaign finance scraper.

The RSS feed is a modest step, but it's certainly nice to see an agency going out of their way by not only hosting a forum on public data, but actually implementing some of the suggestions.

If the early campaign-season barrage of negative advertising is any indicator, the 2012 election is going to be a decidedly uncivil one. According to the Wesleyan Media Project, 70% of advertising in the current presidential campaign has been negative – as compared to just 9% at this stage four years ago.

But just how well do these negative ads work? Historically, political science research has had a hard time uncovering much evidence for their effectiveness. But recent research is more and more finding that they do indeed move voters.

A recent survey by Arizona State professors Kim L. Fridkin and Patrick J. Kenney finds that the more “uncivil” advertisements voters see about a candidate, the more negatively they evaluate that candidate, as long as the ads are also seen as relevant.

Additionally, the researchers find that some voters are more sensitive to attack ads than others, and that attack ads are generally more effective in deflating challengers than incumbents. Their article, “Variability in Citizens’ Reactions to Different Types of Negative Campaigns,” was published last year in the American Journal of Political Science and makes for some fascinating reading.

To assess the impact of negative advertising, the scholars surveyed 1,045 citizens across 21 different 2006 Senate races both before and after the election.

They also had a team of researchers code the ads in those races on two dimensions: civility and relevance. They found that overall, 47% of the ads were “uncivil” and 12% were “irrelevant.” They defined civility as “an explicit use of harsh, shrill, or pejorative adjectives.” (e.g. “After all these years, can’t he offer more than smears and distortions?”) Relevance described whether the ads focused on the candidate’s record (e.g., “The Senator voted to give tax breaks for companies that move overseas”) or not (e.g. “My opponent parties with Playboy playmates”).

In general, the more voters were exposed to ads that were both uncivil and relevant, the more their evaluation of the candidates declined.

“What is impressive,” Fridkin and Kenney write, “is that the relevance and civility of advertising exert a strong impact on candidate evaluations, even controlling for party and ideological proximity.”

The researchers also found that negative press coverage independently reduced the favorability for incumbents, though not as clearly for challengers (presumably because challengers don’t get as much press coverage).

Unsurprisingly, the majority of respondents said they do not like negative ads. Overall, 82% of respondents either agreed somewhat (35%) or strongly (47%) that “some negative advertisements are so nasty that I stop paying attention.”

But some were less bothered by attack ads than others. In particular, the researchers found that the following traits were all independently associated with a higher tolerance for negative political advertisements:

• strong partisanship (both parties)
• following campaigns closely
• conservative political beliefs
• being a man
• being young
• a lack of political sophistication (i.e. inability to adequately place both parties on an ideological scale)

Interestingly, the voters who dislike the ads the most are also the most likely to be swayed by them, while those less bothered are also less likely to be affected. Those who have more tolerance are also less likely to see the ads as irrelevant and uncivil in the first place.

One encouraging sign, however, is that the research did find some support for a backlash effect. “When incumbents stray away from relevant messages and produce and disseminate irrelevant and uncivil messages,” Fridkin and Kenny wrote, “citizens react by lowering their evaluations of these incumbents.” In other words, voters get mad when incumbents unleash irrelevant attacks. So enough may be enough. But then again, they don’t punish challengers as harshly, according to the research.

Then again, with super PACs now around to run negative ads, candidates can worry less about the backlash. Research by Deborah Jordan Brooks and Michael Murov of Dartmouth (which I wrote about last week) finds that attack ads are much more effective when done by independent groups, precisely because they shield candidates from the backlash

If Fridkin and Kenny are correct, then there is one antidote to the effectiveness of attack ads: a bunch of highly partisan, active voters without much political sophistication, especially young conservative males. These individuals appear to have built up a resistance to attack ads. But then again, imagine an electorate filled with them.

A Connecticut bill has been making the rounds in transparency circles recently: HB 5556, a toothy, bipartisan approach to corporate and union campaign financial disclosure, introduced as the state’s response to Citizens United. It quickly passed the CT House 94 - 57 and the Senate 20 - 15 on May 8th, and now all eyes are on Governor Dan Malloy to see whether he’ll veto the bill or sign it into law this week. Although Malloy authored the original text, the bill has been significantly beefed up since it left his office and entered the Government Administration and Elections Committee -- so much so that Malloy’s office has been resistant to showing their support.

But they should get over themselves. It’s refreshing to see a state legislature take such a dedicated approach to campaign finance disclosure reform, especially in an election year. Here’s a round-up of some of the bolder transparency-related measures CT legislators are trying to pass with HB 5556:

• Super PACs and other 501(c)s engaged in campaign-related activity would have to...
• Report all donations over $1000 and publish the names and addresses of these donors on the organization’s website.
• Report any transfer of funds marked for political activity, including the full name and addresses of all individuals involved in making the donation and transfer -- even when the receiving end is another organization. (Translation: Say goodbye to shadowy front groups and intermediaries...)

<li>Corporations, unions, and other legally organized bodies would have to have their boards pre-authorize each and every campaign-related disbursement over $4000 through a vote. Votes of individual members and the resulting expenditures would then need to be published on the organization’s website within 48 hours of voting.</li>
<li>All political ads would be required to not only list the top five donors at the end of the ad (strengthening current “Stand by Your Ad” provisions), but to also include a URL pointing to a website where people can see <strong>all</strong> the organization’s donors -- including the names and addresses of every donor who gave more than $1000.</li>

This isn’t an exhaustive list of HB 5556’s provisions, but these requirements speak to the boldness of Connecticut’s approach. In fact, many of the measures listed above are kin to those in the DISCLOSE Act, a Sunlight-supported federal campaign finance bill currently languishing in Congress.

HB 5556 isn’t a perfect bill (note the strange rider about military voting and the potential "chilling" of grassroots/citizen lobbying near election day), but as far as its approach to transparency measures are concerned, it should be commended and seriously considered as a (constitutional) solution to a problem faced by states everywhere, at time when reform is needed most.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by the guest blogger and those providing comments are theirs alone and do not reflect the opinions of the Sunlight Foundation or any employee thereof. Sunlight Foundation is not responsible for the accuracy of any of the information within the guest blog.

Today's guest blogger is another example of how all citizens regardless of their professions, can be players in participatory politics. Joining us from Arkansas is Paul J. Spencer. Paul has taught Political Science and History at Catholic High School for Boys for the last 13 years.  He is Chairman of the Regnat Populus 2012 Ballot Question Committee. You can follow him on Twitter @RegnatPopulusAR.

Teaching Government and Politics to high school seniors year after year begins to have a curious effect on the teacher.  I have known other teachers and professors before me that evolved to being confirmed Socialists upon their retirement.  Perhaps it is the youthful innocence of engaged students that begin to observe that money has a greater role in the political process than do actual people that causes this evolution of thought over time.  For myself, there came a time at which I felt that merely teaching my students the problems in our American political system was no longer enough.

I began to recognize a self-perpetuating cycle in American electoral politics today. This whirlpool consists of the following components:

• First, a lack of electoral and lobbying transparency that allows moneyed interests to have a greater voice in the electoral process than actual voters.
• Second, a lack of responsiveness of our elected officials to their constituents who have very little to do with the success of the politician’s reelection campaign.
• Third, a lack of true representation for the interests of citizens above those of money.
• Fourth, a creation of a culture of lack of accountability to voters within the body politic.
• Fifth, voter “disconnect” with their elected representatives.
• Sixth, voter apathy and disengagement with the political process in general.

The sixth component curtails citizens’ ability to properly channel their dissatisfaction with the political process towards a productive end, thusly enabling the cycle to begin anew.

I imagine I began to feel the need to free myself from Vicious Cycle Component #6 after the infamous Citizen’s United vs. FEC Supreme Court ruling  in 2010 which gave corporations unlimited spending ability in political campaigns.  This, coupled with the global financial meltdown of 2008 and the appalling lack of accountability our government placed on those responsible, compelled me to attempt to engage as best I could in fighting to at least expose these injustices as so many ordinary Americans have done before me.  My wife and I joined the Occupy movement in Little Rock, Arkansas last October.  We participated in marches and General Assemblies but over time felt a desire to engage IN the political process to try to effect some change through legislation.  We met at a downtown pizza joint and discussed various options that could be attempted with interested academics and activists.  It turned out that my wife’s brother’s best friend from high school had been working on campaign and lobbying reform (Little Rock is a small town) and we hooked up with him.  We envisioned using the Ballot Initiative process to craft a law to curb some of the worst ethics abuses in a state which had just received a D+ from the Center for Public Integrity on its "Corruption Risk Report Card". We formed a Ballot Question Committee whose name was derived from Arkansas’ State Motto: “Regnat Populus” or “The People Rule”.   To make a long story short, with much collaboration of generously donated legal talent, various Occupiers and also fellow teachers I work with, The Regnat Populus 2012 Ballot Question Committee finally birthed The Campaign Finance and Lobbying Act of 2012.  The components of the Act in brief are to:

• Disallow direct corporate contributions in Arkansas elections (as the law currently provides in Federal elections).
• Raise the “cooling-off period” for the revolving door from legislator to lobbyist from the current 1 year waiting period to 2 years.
• Disallow any gifts or meals whatsoever from lobbyists to legislators (not even a cup of coffee).

Because our movement arose spontaneously in response to real events in America today (namely, the Occupy Wall Street movement), we do not have the luxury of time and do not have large moneyed backers to accomplish our goal of 62,507 signatures by a July 6^th deadline.    However, we certainly do have public opinion on our side.  A recent Arkansas poll showed us to have a 69% voter approval rate for this initiative across all political demographics.  We envisioned a wide spread network of canvassers taking action as citizens to break the cycle of voter apathy and political unresponsiveness.   That is the challenge we now face.  Almost every one of us involved in this committee has full time jobs.  We are teachers, a Presbyterian minister, a nurse, an engineer, a non- profit staffer, retired military, and students combined with the generously donated talent of attorneys that want to work to have a system in which legislators are as accountable to the voters as they are to the influence peddlers in state government.

Thus far, we have garnered $2,525 from individuals that has covered printing and postage costs.  There has been slow response from progressive groups in Arkansas to back the measure as noted by Dr. Jay Barth, Political Science professor at Hendrix University in a recent article.  Some fear the measure may hurt the means that legislators gain information, namely from conferences sponsored by industry.  These travel expenses would be banned by the Act.  This point elucidates the game-changing nature of this Initiative.  Putting lobbyists for childrens’ and anti-poverty advocacy groups, and environmental groups on a level playing field with Koch brother funded lobbyists that want to develop around the lake that supplies Little Rock’s drinking water would completely change the way business is done at the Capitol.

We currently stand at a critical juncture.  We have approximately 100 volunteer canvassers working throughout the state.  We have been endorsed by the local and state chapters of the Sierra Club and have state citizen advocacy groups actively canvassing and working with us.  We have been encouraged by the response of Arkansans when asked if they would like to sign our petition, replying “HELL, yes” after hearing the components and then volunteering to canvass themselves.

Many political insiders have scoffed at our “naïve” attempts to face the odds that stand before us.  But I take comfort in the wisdom of the late historian, Howard Zinn, whose perspective over America’s long span of history is useful to contemplate today.

“TO BE HOPEFUL in bad times is not just foolishly romantic. It is based on the fact that human history is a history not only of cruelty, but also of compassion, sacrifice, courage, kindness. What we choose to emphasize in this complex history will determine our lives. If we see only the worst, it destroys our capacity to do something. If we remember those times and places—and there are so many—where people have behaved magnificently, this gives us the energy to act, and at least the possibility of sending this spinning top of a world in a different direction. And if we do act, in however small a way, we don’t have to wait for some grand utopian future. The future is an infinite succession of presents, and to live now as we think human beings should live, in defiance of all that is bad around us, is itself a marvelous victory.”

We do still need more financial support to spread canvassing efforts to include supporting those that would like to canvass full time.  We do still have a great challenge before us.  But events related to this campaign are unfolding on a daily basis in new and encouraging ways.   We believe that the corrupting influence of money in our political system is the defining issue America faces today.  NOW is the time to act to allow the people to truly rule.

 

Please visit our website www.thepeoplerule2012.com for more information.  I’m just going to come right out and say it-any donations would be greatly appreciated.

Interested in writing a guest blog for Sunlight? Email us at guestblog@sunlightfoundation.com