Anticorporate Republicans

Our new book is titled Divided We Stand: The 2020 Elections and American Politics.  Among other things, it discusses the state of the parties.

The state of the GOP is not good.

Caitlin Opyrsko at Politico:

HOW GOP POPULISM COULD PLAY OUT FOR BIG BUSINESS: Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton today unloaded on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, blasting the business lobby in an interview on the “Hugh Hewitt Show” as a “a front service for woke corporations” while asserting that the business lobby had “purged … real Republicans” in its top leadership and lost its influence with the party by endorsing Democrats, per The Hill’s Alex Gangitano. (In a statement to The Hill, the Chamber called Washington “confused” and doubled down on its intention to back “pro-free enterprise, pro-business, pro-governing members of Congress in both parties.”)

— The interaction is emblematic an ongoing realignment in the GOP that signals “trouble ahead for the tried-and-true coalition of Republicans and corporate America,” particularly when combined with the recently announced retirements of lawmakers like Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) and Rob Portman (R-Ohio), the Republican lobbying firm CGCN Group wrote in a memo to clients this morning.

— For corporate America, the shift means the party is “increasingly unwilling to listen simultaneously to corporate priorities on, say, tax and trade policy” when viewed alongside the type of “woke-ism” Cotton, a potential 2024 contender, targeted the Chamber over, according to the memo. The retirement of more business-minded lawmakers, it argues, paves the way for populist ones who have “tapped into the party’s anti-Big Business bent, which seems relatively indifferent to an increase in capital gains and corporate income taxes.”

— “It’s not clear what this tendency suggests over the long-term,” the memo reads. “But for now, the business community needs to rethink how it engages the GOP on issues they consider fundamental. Because their list of priorities and the GOP’s may not always overlap in the same way it once did.”

The GOP After Trump

Our forthcoming book is titled Divided We Stand: The 2020 Elections and American Politics.  Among other things, it discusses the state of the parties:

Mike Allen at Axios:

Republicans will emerge from the Trump era gutted financially, institutionally and structurally. The losses are stark and substantial:

• They lost their congressional power.
• Their two leaders, Mitch McConnell and Kevin McCarthy, are hamstrung by corporate blacklisting of their election-denying members.
• The GOP brand is radioactive for a huge chunk of America.
• The corporate bans on giving to the 147 House and Senate Republicans who voted against election certification are growing and virtually certain to hold.
• The RNC is a shell of its former self and run by a Trump loyalist.
• Democrats crushed them in fundraising when they were out of power. Imagine their edge with it.
• Sheldon Adelson, the party's biggest donor, died Monday.
• The NRA is weaker than it has ever been, after massive leadership scandals.
• The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, once controlled by rock-ribbed Republicans, also gave to Democrats in 2020.
• Rank-and-file Republicans are now scattered on encrypted channels like Signal and fearful of Big Tech platforms.

Non-Coordination Coordination in 2014

At Bloomberg Business Week, Phil Mattingly has a sharp article on non-coordination coordination in 2014:

The pattern is repeating itself in the runup to the November midterm elections. In May the National Republican Senatorial Committee began buying ads for the fall; its filings on the FCC’s website provided a road map for outside groups. “You’re seeing all of the other groups start to layer in,” Forti says. “That’s a coordinated effort.” That helps candidates keep up with the national groups’ plans. On July 1, the Hill newspaper reported that American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS had reserved $20 million in fall advertising time. The buy tracked the NRSC schedule. American Crossroads reserved $5.5 million in Alaska and $3 million in Iowa, while Crossroads GPS staked out $5.1 million in North Carolina, $2.5 million in Arkansas, and $2.1 million in Louisiana. Candidates, including Gardner, know where to find the gaps. “It’s not quite like ordering sandwiches,” says Scott Reed, the chief political strategist for the Chamber of Commerce. “But it’s close.”

Looking Back on This Week's Primaries

Alexander Burns writes at Politico about what happened after Cochran lost his first round:

Back in Washington, Cochran’s most important allies resolved to muffle their anxiety and stick with him for another three weeks. The Chamber of Commerce polled the race, concluded the senator had a difficult but viable path to victory; the group began brainstorming inventive ways to make a splash in the state, culminating with a sensational commercial starring NFL legend Brett Favre. National Republican Senatorial Committee political director Ward Baker, confronted with Beltway pessimism about Cochran’s chances, repeatedly told Republicans in D.C.: “We don’t leave our people on the field.”

Within a week, a powerful operation had swung into motion to save the 76-year-old legislator. Rather than making peace with his firebrand challenger, state and national Republicans redoubled their efforts to tear down Chris McDaniel, whom they considered a political lightweight taking advantage of a virulently anti-Washington mood. In interviews on the day and night of the runoff vote, strategists and party leaders described the campaign as a near-perfect turnaround – considering the slimness of Cochran’s victory, it had to be.

By the time the second round of balloting rolled around on June 24, a collection of groups that might be dubbed the Emergency Committee for Mississippi had spent millions on new television ads, knocked on tens of thousands of doors and reached out to voters – including African-Americans and Democrats – who had likely never voted before in a GOP primary.

Nate Cohn writes at The New York Times:

Turnout hadn’t increased in a Senate runoff primary election in 30 years until Tuesday night, when a momentous surge of voters allowed Senator Thad Cochran to defeat Chris McDaniel, a Tea Party-backed state senator, in Mississippi’s Republican Senate runoff.

Overall turnout has surpassed that from the initial primary by 14 percent, or 45,465 votes, so far. In that contest, Mr. McDaniel edged Mr. Cochran but fell short of the 50 percent necessary to avoid a runoff. Turnout increased by 15.9 percent in the counties that reported 100 percent of their precincts.

The increase in turnout was generally to the benefit of Mr. Cochran. Turnout increased by 34 percent in the counties where Mr. Cochran was strongest and won at least 62 percent of the vote. But turnout also increased by 18 percent in counties where Mr. McDaniel was strong.

Sam R. Hall writes at The Clarion-Ledger:

In the primary, Cochran and his supporters made the race as much about McDaniel as anything. They tried to paint McDaniel as an extremist with questionable background who would be a loose cannon in the general election and — if elected — in Washington. They attacked him on the nursing home scandal, called him a trial lawyer and sent clips of his old radio show to voters in the form of a talking card.

In the runoff, the campaign changed their message. They started talking about what Cochran had done for Mississippi. They embraced his legacy of bringing billions of dollars to the state and helping to build schools, roads, bridges, research facilities and countless other projects.

In other words, instead of giving the voters someone to vote against, Cochran gave them someone to vote for.

James Hohmann writes at Politico:

Two-term Rep. James Lankford crushed T.W. Shannon — the former speaker of the state House who was backed by tea party hero Ted Cruz — and avoided a runoff in the special election to succeed the retiring Tom Coburn.

Before being elected to the House in 2010, the 46-year-old Lankford ran the biggest Baptist summer camp in the state. This helped him build an extensive network among the religious right, and they mobilized for him across the state.

Shannon is both an African-American and a member of the Chickasaw Nation, whose gambling interests make it a major, deep-pocketed player in Oklahoma politics. But the Baptists were far more energized than the tribes, and Lankford far outperformed polls that showed him with a slight lead but below the majority needed to avoid a runoff.

Lankford faces no credible Democratic opposition in the fall.

 Karl Rove writes:

 Tuesday's outcomes suggest local tea party groups have more influence than the national groups purporting to speak for them. A network of Mississippi tea party groups made Mr. McDaniel competitive. In Oklahoma, national groups like Club for Growth, Senate Conservative Fund and FreedomWorks could spend and endorse all they wanted, yet local tea party support for Mr. Lankford blunted these inside-the-Beltway groups' impact in the Sooner State.

This has happened a lot this year. Republican incumbents in Kentucky, South Carolina and Texas, and GOP Senate candidates in Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Montana, North Carolina, South Dakota and West Virginia all avoided or vanquished tea party challengers by keeping close to their state's politics and offering a message that grabbed a significant slice of local tea party support.

Eight of nine GOP House members targeted by the Club for Growth escaped serious opposition and the one who did face serious opposition won 2 to 1. On the flip side, every national tea party group sat out the June 10 Virginia Seventh Congressional District primary. Local tea party groups provided the volunteers and enthusiasm that propelled David Brat to his stunning victory over House Majority Leader Eric Cantor.

Outside Spending: Red Over Blue

Open Secrets reported on Friday:

One of 2013's more intriguing campaign finance stories was the fact that -- after being outspent 2-to-1 in the 2012 cycle -- liberal outside spending groups easily outpaced their conservative counterparts. Led by groups with close ties to Democratic leadership, liberal super PACs dominated the outside spending in early races such as the special elections in Massachusetts and New Jersey, while major conservative players held their fire or focused on Republican primary fights.

Let's hope Democrats enjoyed the lead while it lasted. This week, conservative groups surpassed liberal groups in total reported outside spending for the 2014 cycle -- and aren't likely to look back.

The scales tipped in favor of conservatives yesterday when the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which last cycle spent the bulk of its money opposing Democratic Senate candidates, reported several major ad buys in North Carolina. Conservative groups as a whole have spent $35.7 million so far this cycle, narrowly edging their liberal counterparts' $35.4 million.

As previous posts have indicated, the Chamber has already been quite active in this cycle.

Jolly Coordination

At Bloomberg Business Week, Julie Bykowicz reports :

In near-daily conference calls during the campaign in Florida’s 13th district, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Karl Rove-led American Crossroads and the Koch-backed Americans for Prosperity -- among others -- fine-tuned their strategy targeting Democratic candidate Alex Sink.

The Republican collaboration included a synchronized television- and web-ad plan, a battery of anti-Sink mailers and a last-minute recorded voter appeal by Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky to suffocate support for a third-party candidate who threatened to draw votes from Jolly.

“We’ve worked closely with outside groups in the past, but with Florida-13, we took it to a new level with the depth of our cooperation,” said Carl Forti, political director of American Crossroads, a super-political action committee with ties to Rove, former president George W. Bush’s chief political adviser.

“From strategy to message to timing, everything was integrated and working together,” Forti said. “I would expect to see that again in key races.”

...
In the midterm elections four years ago -- which saw Republicans win the U.S. House of Representatives -- the groups, parties and candidates found ways to maximize the impact of their efforts within the new legal framework. For example, the NRCC in 2010 broke tradition by publicly revealing its ad-buying strategy, which meant the friendly outside groups could fill-in around it or add volume.

Coordination continued in 2012, when Crossroads officials led weekly conferences among the big outside spenders. The special House election in Florida foreshadows the refinement of those earlier efforts. For instance, the sequencing and messaging of the TV ads aimed at helping Jolly was seamless.

Florida 13

Republican David Jolly defeated Democrat Alex Sink in a special election in the 13th congressional district of Florida.  In isolation, special elections do not necessarily portend national trends. But together with the generic ballot, statewide polls, presidential approval ratings, and other data, this result suggests a good year for the GOP.  

The district had voted for Obama.  Democrats had a strong candidate while Republicans had a relatively weak one. Alex Isenstadt reports at Politico:

“Dems should not try to spin this loss,” Paul Begala, a onetime top political aide to former President Bill Clinton, wrote on Twitter. “We have to redouble our efforts for 2014.”

Florida’s 13th District is, in many ways, the archetype of the kind of seat Democrats need to win if they’re serious about erasing their 17-seat House deficit anytime soon. Its electorate is older, overwhelmingly white, and politically moderate — in other words, the kind of people who dominate many of the swing congressional districts across the country.

In fact, the district should have been one of the Democratic Party’s most winnable targets. Of the 37 GOP-held seats that the Cook Political Report ranks as the most vulnerable to Democratic takeover, only 11 are more Democratic-friendly than Florida’s 13th. The district has just a narrow GOP registration edge.

Sean Sullivan reports at The Washington Post:

"The Florida CD-13 special was an important test market and there was unprecedented cooperation among outside groups," said Steven Law, CEO of American Crossroads, a conservative group that spent about $500,000 to help Jolly. "We intend to keep refining these lessons as we prepare for the fall elections."

Crossroads embarked on a coordinated effort in January with American Action Network and YG Network. The three groups combined to spend more than $1 million on the race. But they weren't even the heaviest hitters. The National Republican Congressional Committee spent more than $2 million and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce chipped in more than a $1 million of its own money. Taken together, GOP groups outspent Democratic groups by about $1.25 million.

Most of the Republican money went toward television advertising. Yet total Democratic ad spending still outpaced total GOP ad spending thanks to Democrat Alex Sink's huge cash advantage over Jolly. But the Republican groups spent money smartly, hitting the airwaves with complementary messages and avoiding stepping on each other's toes or doubling up unnecessarily.

The Republican organizations "actually talked to one another and spaced out their buys so there was coverage the whole campaign. Not everyone was up at the same time. "It's a page from our playbook," said one Democrat with an eye on the race, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to provide a candid assessment.

The Establishment Strikes Back

The Wall Street Journal reports:

Republican leaders and their corporate allies have launched an array of efforts aimed at diminishing the clout of the party's most conservative activists and promoting legislation instead of confrontation next year.

GOP House leaders are taking steps to impose discipline on wavering committee chairmen and tea-party factions. Meanwhile, major donors and advocacy groups, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and American Crossroads are preparing an aggressive effort to groom and support more centrist Republican candidates for Congress in 2014's midterm elections.

At the same time, party leaders plan to push legislative proposals—including child tax credits and flextime for hourly workers—designed to build the party's appeal among working families.

...

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce early next year plans to roll out an aggressive effort—expected to cost at least $50 million—to support establishment, business-friendly candidates in primaries and the general election, with an aim of trying to win a Republican Senate majority.

"Our No. 1 focus is to make sure, when it comes to the Senate, that we have no loser candidates," said the business group's top political strategist, Scott Reed. "That will be our mantra: No fools on our ticket.".

...

The Chamber of Commerce Gears Up

At The Wall Street Journal, Gerald Seib writes:

The opening for action, business leaders believe, has been shown by polling Mr. [Doug] Schoen has done for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in recent weeks. At a time when the favorability rating of Congress lurks in the low teens, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's favorable rating is 71%—and 85% of voters have a favorable view of their local Chamber of Commerce, in Mr. Schoen's polling.

The polling also pointed toward one potentially significant mission for business groups: early voting. In 32 states, it's now possible to cast ballots before Election Day rolls around, and Democrats have jumped well ahead of Republicans in getting their voters to take advantage.
Mr. Schoen surveyed 2,000 early voters and found that 50% said a Democratic campaign helped facilitate their early vote, while just 35% said a GOP campaign had done so. Chamber officials now see an opening to use their financial and organizational network to drive early voting toward GOP candidates they prefer.

That finding is helping the Chamber plot its role in next year's congressional elections. On Tuesday it will launch a TV ad on behalf of Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, who faces a tea-party primary challenger in his home state of Kentucky. "Our whole strategy this cycle is we're going to go local," says Scott Reed, a veteran Republican operative who advises the Chamber. "We're going to run it like a sheriff's campaign."

The model was created in last month's runoff in Alabama's first congressional district to determine the GOP nominee to run for a vacant seat. It pitted Bradley Byrne, a lawyer and former state senator, against tea-party favorite Dean Young. Business groups backed Mr. Byrne with money and organization, says William Canary, president of the Business Council of Alabama, and helped drive turnout higher than in the original primary. That sets up an almost-certain victory for Mr. Byrne—and his business backers—in the general election in two weeks.

Outside Groups' "Return on Investment"

The Sunlight Foundation reports:

Tuesday's elections produced some big winners -- and some really big losers -- whose names never appeared on any ballot. After outside groups spent more than $1.3 billion in independent expenditures to influence the outcome of the election, we now get to see just what all that money bought them -- or didn't.

Turns out some of the smart money wasn't so smart after all when it came to making political bets. This year, the pro-business GOP Crossroads fundraising combine and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce weren't as good at picking winners as the labor movement, which appears to be one of the surprise winners of Election Day.

Using Follow the Unlimited Money, Sunlight calculated returns on investment for the outside groups that gave the most during this year's general election campaign. This includes super PACs, non-profit organizations and political party committees. We left out the big committees focused solely on helping presidential contenders -- Restore Our Future, which backed Mitt Romney, and Priorities USA, which supported President Barack Obama -- because their won/loss percentage will be obvious from the election results. The groups listed below all played in more than one contest.

The percentage under each group's name represents their fall batting average: It reflects how much of their money went to support candidates who won and to oppose candidates who lost in thegeneral election campaign. Our calculation does not include money spent on primary contests or special elections. And our data is only as good as the group's reporting to the Federal Election Commission. If you see discrepancies or errors, email us here.

Here are some "return on investment" figures:

• American Crossroads: 1.29%
• Crossroads GPS: 14.4%
• US Chamber of Commerce:  6.9%
• American Future Fund: 5.57%
• American Action Network: 60.33% 

Crossroads GPS in Another NY House Race

Politico reports on a Crossroads GPS ad in a New York House race:

As questions swirl about whether deep-pocketed GOP super PACs will shift their focus to congressional races, we’ve learned that American Crossroads [sic] is placing a heavy buy in a hard-fought upstate New York House race.

Crossroads GPS is spending more than $460,000 to air a TV ad hammering Democratic congressional candidate Julian Schreibman, who’s trying to unseat freshman GOP Rep. Chris Gibson, over Medicare.

The TV ad is only Crossroads’ second in a House race. Last week, it began airing a spot hitting New York Rep. Tim Bishop, who’s embroiled in a rematch with Republican Randy Altschuler.

So far Crossroads has refrained from making a nationwide investment to help defend the GOP’s 25-seat majority – a purchase that Republican strategists privately say they would like to see soon.

On Thursday, another Republican-friendly group, the Chamber of Commerce, purchased around $3 million of TV time in California, a major House battleground.

 

Disclosure and Nondisclosure

Open Secrets reports that 501(c)(4) organizations and other nondisclosing groups are spending much more on independent expenditures than in the past. 

That trend is due in part to a U.S. District Court decision March 30 in the case Van Hollen v. FEC, which requires tax-exempt organizations making electioneering communications to disclose "each donor who donated an amount aggregating $1,000 or more to the person making the disbursement." After the decision, some big spenders like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which had previously produced only issue ads, changed tack and began running ads that explicitly advocate for or against candidates. As a result, the group can continue to avoid disclosing its donors.

In fact, no group has reported making a single electioneering communication since the beginning of April, just after the court decision.

Any group claiming 501(c)(4) status under the Internal Revenue Code is supposed to spend less than half its budget on political activity, such as independent expenditures. However, as OpenSecrets Blog has described, some groups spend much of their money on issue ads, and also fund other tax-exempt groups with similar political philosophies that in turn spend their money on advertising.

The increase in the overall reported spending by nondisclosing groups this cycle is likely attributable in great part to the fact that this is a presidential election year. An additional factor may be that this is the first full election cycle since the January 2010 Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC and other legal developments freed up fundraising and spending by outside groups.

The numbers reported to the FEC don't include the bulk of what the groups have spent. It excludes any money spent on electioneering communications that fell outside the 30-day pre-primary window. Most estimates put that amount at more than $100 million so far this cycle. [emphasis added]

Corporate Contributions to 501(c) Groups

The New York Times finds evidence that corporations are getting around disclosure requirements by giving to 501(c)(4) and 501(c)(6) groups:

The secrecy shrouding these groups makes a full accounting of corporate influence on the electoral process impossible. But glimpses of their donors emerged in a New York Times review of corporate governance reports, tax returns of nonprofit organizations and regulatory filings by insurers and labor unions.

The review found that corporate donations — many of them previously unreported — went to groups large and small, dedicated to shaping public policy on the state and national levels. From a redistricting fight in Minnesota to the sprawling battleground of the 2012 presidential and Congressional elections, corporations are opening their wallets and altering the political world.

...

Among the largest beneficiaries of corporate donations in recent years have been trade organizations like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which largely backs Republican candidates. As a nonprofit “business league” under the tax code, the chamber does not have to disclose its supporters, who helped finance its $33 million in political ads in the 2010 midterm elections.

But voluntary disclosures by corporations — usually at the prodding of shareholder advocacy groups — shed some light on the use of trade groups for lobbying or as pass-throughs for political spending. A search of voluntary disclosures, some collected by the Center for Political Accountability, which advocates for transparency in corporate political spending, found more than $6 million in chamber donations by 10 companies last year.

Two of the largest came from Prudential Financial and Dow Chemical, which each gave $1.6 million, while Chevron, MetLife and Merck each gave at least $500,000. Some of the donations were directed to the chamber’s Institute for Legal Reform, which lobbies for limits on liability suits.

Some contributions are disclosed by accident. Aetna’s check to the American Action Network, along with a $4.5 million contribution last year to the chamber, was mistakenly included in a filing with insurance regulators. The disclosure was first reported by SNL Financial, a trade publication. Even where companies pledge voluntary disclosure of political contributions, they often make an exception for donations to tax-exempt groups.

CA:Chamber Backs Fiorina, Faces Document Hold

The Los Angeles Times reports:

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce on Monday endorsed Republican U.S. Senate candidate Carly Fiorina, who is setting out on a two-day, six-stop tour of California to highlight the group’s backing and aspects of her economic agenda.

Bill Miller, the U.S. Chamber’s senior vice president and national political director, said in a statement that the former Hewlett-Packard chief executive “understands the challenges businesses are facing and will stand up for the people of California during these tough economic times.”

“On issues ranging from competition in the healthcare industry, to lowering taxes, to reducing energy costs, California’s businesses and workers will have a tireless advocate in Carly Fiorina,” said Miller, who will be traveling with Fiorina on Monday in Southern California and the Central Valley.

The chamber, which has been building a broad grassroots network, has signaled that it intends to play a major role in this year’s midterm elections -- more than doubling its spending on congressional elections from $35 million in 2008 to at least $75 million this year.

The Huffington Post reports:

Election fraud attorney Bob Fitrakis is sending letters today to attorneys representing the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and American Crossroads requesting that they retain all documents, emails, accounting records and other records. This "document hold" is the first step toward legal action based on the groups' alleged laundering of illegal campaign contributions from large corporations.