CA: Whitman Wealth

Variety reports on Whitman ad buys:

According to the Campaign Media Analysis Group (CMAG), Whitman has, since June, run 32,000 TV ads across the state at a cost of $21 million. Brown has run no spots, but he's been aided by independent groups that have spent $9 million on some 4,000 ads. He's expected to start running spots soon after Labor Day.

Evan Tracey, president of CMAG, says Whitman's coffers will prove especially useful in the last 30 days of the campaign, when "elections are won or lost," and as the race becomes about attracting the last 8% or 9% of undecided voters.

Her campaign last week started running spots in the Bay Area slamming Brown's tenure as mayor of Oakland. They don't expect to win the heavily liberal region of the state, but the luxury of being able to spend on that kind of effort means she may chip away at Brown's lead there.

"There seems to be a lot of variety in what she is running, and they are doing a good job in mixing it up," Tracey says. "There are so many options competing for people's time, and the political response has been to just turn up the volume. It's just hard to see a scenario where she is overexposed."

In 2008, Barack Obama had to introduce himself to the public and, like Whitman's, his campaign saturated media markets; ad spots were even embedded in videogames. The blitz proved especially fruitful in the final month before the election, when Obama's campaign ran just as many or more negative spots than John McCain's, but it was McCain's campaign that got slammed for being too harsh. That's because Obama also was able to also run a concurrent positive campaign, evoking the message of hope and change, Tracey notes.

The same scenario may hold true for Whitman.

"When you have a lot of money, you don't have to rely on a couple of spots to break through," he says.

The Los Angeles Times reports more broadly on her spending:

"She has the money to do everything," said Garry South, a Democratic consultant who ran Gray Davis' campaigns for governor, "and she is doing everything."

...

"We're doing things much more aggressively than they've ever been done before," said spokesman Tucker Bounds. "The frequency of the activity and the size of the political organization is an enormous investment, but we believe it will pay off on election day."

...

Democratic consultant Darry Sragow said a typical candidate might spend $300,000 on polling in the primary and a like sum in the general election. Whitman's figures suggest a sharply different strategy than anything seen before.

"They know as much as anybody could know about the mind-set of the California electorate," he said.

...

Trackers follow Brown with smart phones that can send live video of him to a "war room," where aides launch responses before a Brown event ends. Consultants have designed two websites, one attacking Brown's record, the other attacking the leadership of one of his biggest backers, the California Nurses Assn.

Apart from those traditional campaign methods, Whitman's effort is relying on newer techniques to try to build loyalty among voters. Borrowing a tactic from other campaigns, including Obama's, Whitman's has taught volunteers how to use their personal computers to make calls to voters and immediately feed information about their intentions back to headquarters.

Data are compiled and used to reach specific segments of the electorate through tele-town halls, for which thousands of likely voters are patched onto a conference call with the candidate. Cable TV viewers watching a Whitman ad are encouraged to push a button on their remote controls if they want Whitman's job creation plan mailed to their homes.

"The idea is to spend vast amounts on technology to chop up the electorate as many ways as possible so you're hitting a Fresno woman making $40,000 to $50,000 a year who cares about education and air quality," said Adam Mendelsohn, a Republican consultant.

The campaign has spent $4.5 million on information technology and Web development, most of which went to Tokoni, a social networking firm run by former EBay associates. Last week Whitman's team unveiled its own iPhone application.

On a recent visit to the campaign's Silicon Valley offices, programmers were working to add Facebook-style flair to Whitman's website: Supporters will have a home page where they can monitor campaign activity, write articles and see which of their local civic and elected leaders have endorsed Whitman. They can also find the location of the closest field office and the phone number of the local precinct leader.

American Crossroads Ads

The Center for Responsive Politics reports:

ROVE-BACKED GROUP KEEPS NEW ADS COMING: Television viewers in Nevada, Colorado, Missouri and Kentucky are seeing new attack ads paid for a group called “Crossroads GPS” targeting the Democratic Senate candidates in each state, Talking Points Memo reports. Crossroads GPS, or Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies, is a 501(c)4 non-profit group conceived by some of the highest profile Republican strategists, including Karl Rove, President George W. Bush’s political guru, and Ed Gillespie, a former chair of the Republican National Committee. The group was launched in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling that overturned a ban on corporate donations to groups producing communications that advocate for or against federal candidates.

Because it is organized under section 501(c)4 of U.S. tax code, donations to it are not tax-deductible, and it is allowed to engage in more overt political messages and lobbying compared to 501(c)3 non-profits, which face more restrictions but are allowed to raise tax-deductible donations. This status also allows the group to avoid disclosing any information about its donors until well after the election -- as it won’t submit any filings to the Internal Revenue Service until months into 2011.

One of the group’s related organizations, American Crossroads, has registered with the Federal Election Commission and reported raising $5.3 million through the end of July, according to a Center for Responsive Politics review of its most recently filed report. The bulk of that money came from wealthy individuals and corporations. Individuals, groups and corporations giving more to American Crossroads than they legally would have been allowed to give to a political committee prior to Citizens United include Southwest Louisiana Land LLC; Tejon Exploration Company; TRT Holdings Inc.; Dixie Rice Agricultural Corporation; the Jerry Perenchio Living Trust; B. Wayne Hughes, the chairman of Public Storage; investor William Harte; investor Dian Graves Stai and investor J.J. Matthews.

And such spending by organizations of all political stripes is likely to continue unabated during the next 60 days until the election. Evan Tracey of Kantar Media/CMAG, which tracks media spending, recently told trade publication Advertising Age that groups are on pace to spend a record $3 billion on TV ads this year. So far groups have spent a combined $864 million on political TV ads so far this cycle -- $50 million more than was spend during the 2008 elections, Tracey said.

The Authors on Midterms

In the Weekly Standard, Daniel DiSalvo and James Ceaser write that "typical" midterms result in only modest losses for the party holding the presidency. The last four midterms, however, have all been atypical. In 1998 and 2002, the in-party actually gained seats. In 1994 and 2006, it lost far more than the norm. The upcoming midterm seems to be heading in the latter direction, with big Democratic losses.

Whether midterm elections that topple the governing party provide “mandates” for the new majority is another matter. The incoming party has every incentive to portray the results as not only a rebuke of the president, but also an indication of public support for its agenda.

This year, if Republicans capture one or both houses of Congress, they will undoubtedly argue that they have a warrant to pursue their policy goals: revisiting Obamacare and altering the stimulus policies. Yet, two leading electoral analysts, Norman Ornstein and Alan Abramowitz, recently cautioned the GOP against pressing its case too assertively. They argue that such tactics can backfire and cite the example of Gingrich in 1994 to make their point.

While Gingrich’s grandstanding may have helped Clinton win reelection in 1996, Republican majorities did force major changes in public policy. Of course, such changes only happened because Clinton was flexible enough—and found it in his interest—to play ball. If Republicans are victorious this fall, they may wish to gently remind Obama what he peremptorily told them after dismissing their complaints about the stimulus bill: “I won.”

In an age when so much attention is focused on the president, midterm elections spotlight the separation of powers. Congress doesn’t speak with the same unitary voice as the president, but a decisive outcome in congressional elections can still send a message loud and clear.

At a roundtable at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Andrew Busch and Jack Pitney discussed historical analogies. Video here.

American Crossroads, RNC Woes,and Issue Ads

David Drucker reports at CQ Politics:

Now, as the DCCC and DSCC are looking to reap the benefits of an Obama-run DNC — which has budgeted $50 million for the fall campaign, including $30 million on field operations and a combined $20 million cash injection to the two Democratic campaign committees, Republicans are relying in large part on third-party groups such as American Crossroads, a 527 with two former GOP campaign committee strategists at the helm and a former RNC chairman on its board.

“I have not heard one GOP operative or staff member who thinks that the RNC will have a dime for them,” said one Republican operative working on a Senate race. “In fact, we are setting up our own Victory Operation with the thought that there won’t be any money there at the end.”

Firedoglake is critical:

You can see all four ads, backed by “American Crossroads,” the Rove/Ed Gillespie outfit designed mainly to attract donors who want no part of the RNC, here. Two of them attack sitting Senators, Harry Reid and Michael Bennet. But while the spots clearly are generic, attacking the stimulus package and various studies to fund ant research and the effects of cocaine on monkeys (This is on the “McCain principle” that any funding involving animals is necessary funny and therefore wasteful), at the end of the spots, a billboard comes up at the end requesting the viewer to call their Senator and tell them to “vote no on S.Amdt 4594.”

Surely, every viewer watching this ad will know exactly what S.Amdt. 4594 is all about. But in case you don’t, it happens to be the small business lending bill, scheduled for a vote when the Senate returns from recess on September 13.

Nowhere in this ad does it mention the small business lending bill, or small businesses in general. The line right above “vote no on S.Amdt 4594″ says “Nevada needs jobs, not more spending.” The small business lending bill, which is fully paid for, is designed to provide credit to small businesses so they can expand their operations. I don’t think it’s bound to be particularly effective, the Independent Community Bankers of America estimated that it would create 500,000 jobs.

You don’t have to believe them, but my central point is a bit different. This doesn’t come close to being an “issue ad,” in any reasonable sense of the term. Rove’s group is giving the impression of one to avoid disclosure and probably keep the tax-exempt status of Crossroads GPS, the umbrella organization supplying the ads.

CA: A Very Expensive Primary Win

The Sacramento Bee reports:

The nearly $100 million price tag on Republican gubernatorial nominee Meg Whitman's primary win breaks down as the second-highest spending per primary vote by a largely self-funded gubernatorial candidate, according to an analysis released today by The Fair Political Practices Commission. ...

Here are the self-funded candidates who spent the most per vote. Just Whitman and Bill Simon won their primary contests:

1. Al Checchi $70.21 (1998 Democratic gubernatorial primary)

2. Meg Whitman $65.29 (2010 Republican gubernatorial primary)

3. Steve Westly $45.29 (2006 Democratic gubernatorial primary

4. Steve Poizner $43.64 (2010 Republican gubernatorial primary)

5. Jane Harman $29.59 (1998 Democratic gubernatorial primary)

6. Bill Simon $17.31 (2002 Republican gubernatorial primary)

Click here to read the full report.

American Crossroads in Nevada and Missouri

Politico reports:

SCORE PREVIEW – CROSSROADS ASSAULT CONTINUES: Crossroads GPS, an arm of the conservative campaign group American Crossroads, has put two new commercials into rotation in the Nevada and Missouri Senate races. The Nevada spot hammers Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for supporting the stimulus, using the John McCain- and Tom Coburn-authored list of the law’s most objectionable projects to suggest that Reid’s taken his eye off the economic ball. “Harry’s stimulus sent nearly $2 million to California to collect ants – in Africa. Twenty-five million for new chair lifts and snowmaking in Vermont. Almost three hundred thousand to Texas to study weather – on Venus,” the narrator says. “Meanwhile, back in Nevada, we still have the highest unemployment and record foreclosures. Really, Harry, how about some help for Nevada?” Watch the Nevada spot here: http://bit.ly/9Eqvly

MORE: In Missouri, Crossroads GPS ties Democratic Senate candidate Robin Carnahan to national health care reform, urging her to support a state-level challenge led by Republican Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder instead of “the Obamacare law that could raise our health insurance premiums and cut billions from Medicare.” Here’s the Missouri ad: http://bit.ly/aSyx3W (Crossroads has also been running ads in Colorado http://bit.ly/9GtduY and Kentucky. http://bit.ly/blpyY8.)

How Would a GOP House Work?

Politico reports:

If Republicans win the House in November, John Boehner and his top lieutenants say they’re ready to spread the power.

Look for a return of committee influence in preparing legislation — re-establishing the authority of diminished chairmen — and an easing of the hammerlock that leaders of both parties have exercised.

They make clear that they plan not only to change the top-down management style of Speaker Nancy Pelosi but also to pare back the excesses and power plays that occurred during the 12 years of Republican control under Newt Gingrich, Dennis Hastert and Tom DeLay.

“We will restructure the House,” said Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.). “We will empower the public. We will have more open debate.”

We heard the same from the GOP in 1994 and the Democrats in 2006.

Yet Boehner would be different from the past three speakers in that he is a former chairman — he held the Education and Workforce Committee gavel for five years — so he would come to the speaker’s office with a more sympathetic view of the traditional authority of committee chairmen.

Several factors are pressing to make the House more open. Committee leaders and rank-and-file members in both parties have been chafing under the leadership dominance that increasingly has ruled the House since Democrats lost their majority in 1994. That pressure will be reinforced by a rambunctious Republican freshman class that could exceed 60 members if the GOP takes control.

For a preview of the freshman class: