As we look back on the 2012 election as the most expensive in history, we will see that there were some very, very expensive races. Overall, there were 40 House and Senate races in which at least $20 was spent per eligible voter, and two races (the North Dakota and the Montana Senate races), where at least $50 was spent per eligible voter. The cocktail party tidbits are that in the Montana Senate race, campaigns and outside groups combined spent $64.41 per eligible voter; In the North Dakota Senate race, $56.17 per eligible voter. In the House, the most expensive district was FL-18, home to the controversial and losing Allen West (R). That district received $58.96 per eligible voter.
Continue readingNRA’s allegiances reach deep into Congress
Just over half (51 percent) of the members of the new Congress that convenes next month have received funding from the National Rifle Association’s political action committee at some point in their political careers, an analysis by the Sunlight Foundation finds. And 47 percent received money from the NRA in the most recent race in which they ran.
The numbers give insight into the depth and breadth of support that the nation’s most powerful gun lobby commands. They also highlight the primary obstacle to quick action on gun control in response to last week’s massacre in Newton, Conn. – deep and long-lasting allegiances to the National Rifle Association.
Explaining the power of the National Rifle Association, in one graph
In the wake of the tragic shooting in Newtown, one of the emerging debates is whether there will even be a debate. Past mass shootings have come and gone without any action. Many argue that the reason for this inaction is simple: politicians have been afraid to take on the National Rifle Association, the large and influential pro-gun lobby that spent at least $18.6 million this past election cycle - $11.1 million through its Political Victory Fund, plus $7.5 million through its affiliated Institute for Legislative Action.
Here are the data: The NRA has spent 73 times what the leading pro-gun control advocacy organization, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, has spent on lobbying in the 112th Congress ($4.4 million to $60,000, through the second quarter of 2012), and 4,143 times what the Brady Campaign spent on the 2012 election ($24.28 million to $5,816). (One caveat on the data is that the NRA itself does a very poor job of accurately reporting its spending, and we must rely on its self-reports.)
Another reason for a fiscal cliff standstill: too many safe seats?
As “fiscal cliff” negotiations continue to slow to a standstill, Americans might be feeling frustrated about the inability of their representatives to reach a compromise. Wasn’t the election supposed to settle the argument? There are many reasons to explain the intransigence. Last week, we documented the ubiquitous lobbying on tax and budget issues that will almost certainly complicate any attempt to reach a deal. But there’s another factor to keep in mind: The majority of members of Congress have relatively homogenous constituencies. That means they’re probably hearing overwhelmingly from only one side of the argument back home, and facing limited pressure to find a compromise.
Continue readingDid House Republicans pass over women for leadership roles because they were poor fundraisers?
When House Republicans announced their new line-up of committee chairs for the 113th Congress last week, the Washington buzz was that all were white men. Not a single lady was given charge of a committee. While we can’t rule out sexism, there’s another explanation that might be even simpler: money. In particular, money that House Republicans raised for their leadership PACs, organizations separate from their own campaigns that are used to help fellow candidates and generally demonstrate members’ fundraising prowess.
Continue readingWill lobbyists complicate fiscal cliff deal-making?
As the wheeling and dealing around the “fiscal cliff” continues to envelop Washington, thousands of lobbyists representing more than a billion dollars are watching. After all, any grand bargain on spending and revenue is will go right at the heart of two of the most heavily-lobbied issues in Washington: budget and taxes In the 112th Congress, 2,049 organizations have so far spent $619 million to lobby on tax issues, and 4,576 organizations have so far spent $576 million to lobby on federal budget and appropriations issues (totals are through the second quarter of 2012). Another 1,843 organizations have spent $234 million to lobby on defense issues (under the sequester, half of the cuts are slated for defense). Add it up, and and you have at least $1.3 billion in lobbying devoted to these three issues in the 112th Congress.
Continue readingAnother way to look at money in politics: Its impact on partisan control of state legislatures
As we continue to debate the impact that money had on the 2012 federal races, along comes a very intriguing paper that looks at the question of spending a bit differently. And finds some rather significant effects. Instead of looking at the impact on individual candidates, Andrew B. Hall, a Ph.D. candidate at Harvard, has looked at the relationship between funding levels and partisan control. And he’s looked at the impact on the state level, and looked at it over several decades. All of which makes his paper, “Aggregate Effects of Campaign Spending” a worthwhile read.
Continue readingWhy Money Still Matters
As we continue to over-interpret the data point that was last Tuesday’s $6 billion election, one big question is what to make of the fact that the super PACs and 501(c) dark money groups have spent the last week pointing fingers at each other rather than celebrating – particularly the Republican groups that earned so much scrutiny from the press and so much scorn from those on the left. Does this mean that Democrats’ reactions to Citizens United were overblown, and that money doesn’t really matter? That those of us who fret about the amount of money in politics should just get on with our lives, and care about something else?
Continue readingIn the Senate, seven races topped $40 million in spending
By now, we know the Senate results well: The Democrats picked up seats, including victories in Indiana and Missouri that few expected at the beginning of the cycle. Of the 10 seats that the Cook Political Report listed as toss up races two months before the election, Democrats won nine, losing only in Nevada. But boy did it cost a lot.
Continue readingHow Much Did Money Really Matter in 2012?
One of the emerging post-campaign narratives is that all the outside money (more than $1.3 billion) that poured into the 2012 election didn’t buy much in the way of victories. And as we dig through the results in detail (our extensive data visualizations and analysis are below), the story holds up: we can find no statistically observable relationship between the outside spending and the likelihood of victory. Looking closely at the data helps to clarify and explore this emerging narrative in numerous ways. It also helps us to see some other smaller effects of money. It appears that candidate spending may have mattered a bit more than outside spending, especially for Democrats. It also appears that outside spending may have contributed slightly to the vote share, though not to the probability of victory. This post is based on House results, both because looking at the House gives us a larger sample size, and because there’s more of a likelihood that money could make a difference in House races, given the smaller size of House seats (compared to the Senate), the recent redistricting and the fact that we’ve had three House elections in a row with high turnover. (We’ll come back to the Senate soon, we promise) First an overview. As of September 6, two months before the election, the Cook Political Report listed 90 House seats as either likely for one party, lean for one party, or toss-ups. These were the seats where money could make a difference if it were to make one. (Before we proceed, a few caveats: 1. The candidate spending totals are through October 17; and 2. For purposes of the analysis we include outcomes still pending final approval.) Outside spending on these 90 seats was just over a quarter of a billion: $250,656,656, and candidate spending was just short of $300 million: $297,947,7717. In the 25 toss-up races, candidates spent $100,164,189; outside groups spent $140,043,821.
Continue reading
59063
