Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Alerts | Electronic edition | Advertise | Subscribe to the paper | Today's Extras

Breaking News:

Subscribe

$7 million and counting in attack ads; more coming as election nears

By Burt Hubbard, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published September 7, 2008 at 11:58 a.m.

Text size  

More Elections

More stories »

At least $7 million has flowed into attack ads and stealth campaigns against state and federal political candidates in Colorado so far this year, with the most expensive campaigning still ahead.

Non-profit issues groups last week aired the last of million-dollar campaigns against candidates for Congress, while the independent 527 groups have amassed millions more to launch their political blitzes for control of the state Legislature.

The result will be a barrage of negative campaigning between now and the Nov. 4 election, analysts said.

“You’ll just see a shift in groups, not a diminution in negative ads,” said Colorado State University professor John Straayer.

The 527 groups in Colorado, named for a section of the IRS code, have collected almost $5 million so far this election cycle, according to reports filed with the Secretary of State.

There are no limits to the size of donations to the groups as there are for direct contributions to candidates. In addition, the groups can spend unlimited amounts of money on political advertising as long as they do not coordinate with candidates.

DEMS LEAD IN DONATIONS

As in past elections, Democratic-leaning groups have collected far more money than Republican-leaning groups, according to the filings. The success of the Democratic 527s have been cited in past elections as a key to the Democrats taking control of both the state Senate and House in Colorado.

Five Democratic 527s have $3.2 million in donations compared with $1.7 million collected by two Republican 527s through the end of August, according to filings.

Fort Collins heiress and philanthropist Pat Stryker and labor unions have accounted for most of the donations to the Democratic groups. Stryker has donated more than $800,000 so far. The state teachers’ union’s Public Education Committee has given almost $500,000, while the local United Commercial Workers Union and AFSCME union have donated $275,000 and $300,000, respectively.

On the Republican side, the top donors were insurance company Farmers Group, $40,000, and energy company Encana and businessman Ed McVaney, $30,000 each.

Both sides have begun buying advertising time, the reports show.

SWING STATE DYNAMICS

That will make for crowded air waves, said Republican political consultant Katy Atkinson.

“Colorado is a swing state in the presidential election which means the presidential candidates are buying up air time,” Atkinson said. “In addition, the U.S. Senate candidates and all their related 527s are buying up air time.”

Another $2 million was spent by outside groups against Colorado candidates for Congress and the U.S. Senate, according to separate filings with the Federal Election Commission. They included labor union-financed ads against Democrat Jared Polis in his successful race for the party’s nomination for a congressional seat.

However, most of the negative ads seen on Colorado television so far have been paid for by another type of group that has not had to disclose amounts or sources of funding. They are called C4s, short for the IRS designation 501c4 for social welfare non-profits.

They can spend up to 50 percent of their money for political purposes as long as they do not advocate the election or defeat of a candidate. In addition, they do not have to publicly disclose their political expenditures with federal campaign officials unless their ads run within 60 days of the Nov. 4 election. That deadline was last week.

NEGATIVE AD BLITZ

The most notorius C4 ads were the ones against U.S. Senate candidate Mark Udall, a Democrat, and incumbent Republican Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave. Both ended last week.

The Udall advertisement by the conservative group Freedom’s Watch depicted Udall “skipping out” of a Congressional vote to go to a fundraiser.

The Musgrave advertisement by the VoteVets.Org group showed Colorado veterans of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq criticizing her for voting against combat pay.

Jason Thielman, Musgrave’s campaign manager, said the ad campaigns cause problems for candidates. Musgrave also was the subject of negative ads by the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund.

“It’s difficult because it’s an unseen adversary,” Thielman said. “It sort of invokes guerilla tactics. It’s difficult to punch back.”

The campaign recently begin airing its own positive television ads on Musgrave which mention her opposition to funding cuts for veterans.

Tara Trujillo, spokeswoman for the Udall campaign, said the anti-Udall ads are not resonating among Coloradans.

“I think it is backfiring because we are hearing a lot of voters come to his defense,” Trujillo said.

WHICH ADS WORK?

Representatives for both non-profit groups defended the ads.

Tim Pearson, spokesman for Freedom’s Watch, said the non-profit is concerned with conservative issues such as energy production that made Udall’s track record an appropriate target.

“Because we were an issue-based organization and not a political one, it just made more sense to set up under that section of the tax code,” Pearson said.

He declined to disclose how much the group paid for the ads except to say it was “substantial.”

Jon Soltz, chair of VoteVets, said veterans living in Colorado pushed for the television ad about Musgrave.

“This is an issue-based ad,” Soltz said. “It’s not based on the election.”

Soltz said the group paid about $390,000 for the Musgrave ad and $400,000 for another ad criticizing Bob Schaffer, Udall’s Republican opponent for the Senate seat.

Robert Duffy, chair of the Political Science Department at CSU, said it is hit or miss whether such negative ads by outside groups have an impact on elections.

The most successful ones tend to emphasize issues that are at the heart of the political race.

“If you have three, four, five, six different entities all repeating variations on the same theme about a candidate, it has a chance to brand them for good or ill,” Duffy said.

For example, earlier this decade when Democrat Tom Strickland was trying to unseat incumbent Republican U.S. Sen. Wayne Allard, environmental groups flooded the airways with ads criticizing Allard.

However, the environment was not a major issue in the campaign and the ads had little impact, he said.

Conversely, during the next U.S. Senate race between Democrat Ken Salazar and Republican Pete Coors, 527s were able to hurt Coors with ads depicting him as in favor of lowering the drinking age.

“In those instances, that’s when it can really work,” Duffy said.

hubbardb@RockyMountain

Comments

  • September 7, 2008

    1:14 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    PonchoVia writes:

    I am totally tired of attack ads from either party. Can't they say anything good about themselves? These attack ads are polarizing and harmful to constructive debate. At a time when the country needs to come together to handle major problems, we can't afford the negative, nasty, polarizing attack campaign strategy. It takes more integrity, character and risk to present a positive ad about the candidate, so I can see why a lot of candidates resort to negative ads.

  • September 7, 2008

    1:55 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Uno writes:

    So Democrats lied about big money influence, what a surprise. Spend millions on campaign ads while people out there can't afford to eat. Money and power, that's all the Dems care about, but don't worry the top layer of the labor unions not gonna be jobless any time soon and I'm sure they thinking about you a lot while playing golf, financed by your union dues.

  • September 7, 2008

    6:47 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    dftoad writes:

    Yea, I even saw one ad that said the Tulsa Drillers are part of Big Oil!

  • September 7, 2008

    8:01 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    PonchoVia writes:

    How appropriate that UNO should take a moment to attack in this article.

Post your comment

Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.

Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.




(Forgotten your password?)




News Tip

Know about something we should be reporting? Tell us about it.

Sponsored links



Reprints