Special interest spending analyzed

The George W. Bush presidential campaign and the Republican National Committee spent over $1.3 million more on television ads than Vice President Al Gore and the Democratic Party during the week ending Sept. 20, but unprecedented spending by special interest groups on behalf of Gore made up the difference, pulling Gore even in the week’s advertising wars.

The findings are the latest in an ongoing “real-time” study of political television advertising by political scientist Kenneth Goldstein of the University of Wisconsin–Madison in conjunction with the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law.

Though Bush’s campaign almost doubled the spending on ads by the vice president’s campaign ($2 million to $1.1 million) during the week, voters in targeted markets saw no difference in the two candidates’ levels of activity, thanks to independent groups.

Led by Handgun Control Inc. and the AFL-CIO, group spending for Gore during the week ending September 20, exceeded $1.1 million, compared to just $17,227 of group spending for Bush.

Groups backing Gore saturated major media markets in Midwestern battleground states – Pennsylvania (Philadelphia), Ohio (Cleveland), Michigan (Detroit), and Missouri (St. Louis). Since June 1, independent group spending on ads for Gore has exceeded group spending for Bush by a tenfold margin – $3.6 million to $334,505.

The study is funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts. Using data from the Campaign Media Analysis Group (“CMAG”) to monitor political advertising in the nation’s top 75 media markets, reaching more than 80 percent of the U.S. population, the Brennan Center and Goldstein are analyzing political advertising in real time for the duration of the 2000 campaign. Every political ad aired in these media markets is reviewed, quantified and coded along an extensive array of variables.

Party spending of “soft money” on televised campaign appeals shows no sign of receding, solidifying the parties as the dominant players in the 2000 presidential election. Since June 1, the Republican and Democratic parties spent in excess of $52 million on ads, while combined spending by the Bush and Gore campaigns was $21 million. All party sponsored ads mention a candidate, and none reference the party, even though the “soft money” paying for the ads is supposedly restricted by law to party-building activities.

The $3.6 million to $334,505 advantage for Gore in group spending on ads since June 1 comes from $1.3 million in ads paid for by Handgun Control, $1.1 million by the AFL-CIO, and $640,000 by American Family Voices – the 3 most active independent groups in the presidential race. American Family Voices is a political nonprofit set up by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.

The only group among the top spenders that paid for ads for Bush is the National Rifle Association, which spent $257,072 since June 1 and ranks fourth among independent groups. The Sierra Club ranks fifth.

In Florida and five other battleground states concentrated in the Midwest, the presidential candidates continue to wage a furious battle over the television airwaves. Bush holds a lopsided spending edge in Florida and an advantage in Michigan; Gore holds a small edge in Wisconsin, Missouri, and Pennsylvania; and in Ohio spending is even.

Efforts by the Bush campaign and the RNC in Florida continue at peak intensity, where Miami, Orlando, and Tampa pulled off a trifecta: these Florida markets ranked tops nationally in the number of ads for Bush aired during the week ending Sept. 20. Since June 1, Bush has spent twice as much on ads in Florida as Gore – $6.2 million to $3.1 million.

And in Democratic California, Bush continues spending modestly in small and medium-sized markets.

On the Democratic side of the ledger, the Gore campaign and the DNC have aired more ads in Green Bay, Wis. than any other media market since June 1, with a second city in traditionally Democratic Wisconsin – Milwaukee – getting the fourth most attention from the Gore camp. Washington state, firmly in the Democratic column in the past two presidential elections, recently has shown a marked increase in spending by Gore focused on the Seattle media market.

“The usual suspects, those Midwestern battleground states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Missouri, and Michigan, continue to receive massive spending on ads,” says Goldstein. “It’s also clear from the data that the Bush camp is still fighting for its electoral life in Florida, and Gore has yet to secure Wisconsin and Washington – states that are ‘must haves’ in any winning Democratic election calculus.”

These findings make the 2000 campaign the first-ever in which information describing candidates’ use of the television airwaves will be available to voters, political scientists, and campaign analysts in real time. The Brennan Center study will continue for the duration of the campaign and reveals the untold story of television advertising paid for by candidates, parties, and groups:

— Spending on ads by candidates, parties, and allied groups.

— Priority media markets targeted by the Republican and Democratic parties during the most recent two weeks.

— Analysis of party advertising.

Campaign Media Analysis Group (CMAG), a commercial firm that advises advertisers and reporters, compiled the data using technology that monitors political advertising by the major national broadcast television networks and 25 leading cable networks in 75 media markets reaching over 80 of the population.

Each time an ad ran, CMAG recorded the date, time, television station and length of the ad. The information was later supplemented with estimates of the cost for each time slot. CMAG reported the average cost of the time slot for each ad aired. This captured the cost of the media buy, not the amount spent on production or placement.
# # #
33