Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

Attack ad, stealth spending at $7 million and counting

Barrage expected to grow as Nov. 4 election nears

By Burt Hubbard, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published September 8, 2008 at 12:05 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 this year, with the most expensive campaigning still ahead.

Nonprofit 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 that regulates them, have collected almost $5 million this election cycle, according to reports filed with the Secretary of State's Office.

There are no limits on the size of donations to the groups as there are on direct contributions to candidates. In addition, they can spend unlimited amounts of money on political advertising as long as they do not coordinate the ad campaigns 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 in past elections has been cited as a key to the Democrats' taking control of the state Senate and House.

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. The state teachers union has given almost $500,000, while the local United Food and Commercial Workers union and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees union have donated $275,000 and $300,000, respectively.

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

Swing state dynamics

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

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

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

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. That included labor union-financed ads against Democrat Jared Polis in his successful race for the party's nomination for a congressional seat.

But most of the negative ads on Colorado television 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 nonprofits.

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. 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 notorious C4 ads were the ones against U.S. Senate candidate Mark Udall, a Democrat, and Republican U.S. Rep. 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 VoteVets.org 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 ads cause problems for candidates.

"It's difficult because it's an unseen adversary," Thielman said. "It sort of invokes guerrilla tactics. It's difficult to punch back."

The campaign recently began 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," she said.

Which ads work?

Representatives of the nonprofit groups defended the ads.

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

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

Jon Soltz, chairman 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, chairman of the Political Science Department at CSU, said it is hit or miss whether 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 Republican U.S. Sen. Wayne Allard, environmental groups flooded the airways with ads criticizing Allard. But the environment was not a major issue in the campaign and the ads had little impact, Duffy said.

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

hubbardb@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-5107

Comments

  • September 8, 2008

    7:33 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    jacka writes:

    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. The state teachers union has given almost $500,000, while the local United Food and Commercial Workers union and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees union have donated $275,000 and $300,000, respectively.

  • September 8, 2008

    10:54 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    jacka writes:

    Over $1 million in Union Dues to Democrats for state house and senate races.

    Hey Republican and Independent Union members...do you agree that your union dues should be used to fund Democrat politicians who support the following principles?

    Less money for police and fire to protect you
    Partial birth abortions
    Higher property taxes
    Higher costs for local government to operate
    Higher gas taxes
    Men in the the women's toilet with your wife, daughter or toddler
    Higher income taxes
    More regulations on your childs school
    More government fees to pay for bloated governmnet programs
    Tax dollars to fund abortions
    Controlling faith-based decisions your church, temple or mosque need to operate
    Rules making it easier for you to be sued by radical trial lawyers
    Cost shifting to rural areas or to urban areas
    More protections for illegal alians
    Higher insurance rates due to industry mandates
    More regulations on your business or employer
    More business taxes and fees
    Less healthcare choices
    More personal mandates
    Failure to firedishonest politicians
    King makers of tax based earmarks
    Less protection from wild fires
    More gun regulations
    Throwing away Colorado's strategic water resources
    Increasing your home electricity prices
    Less money spent on safe highways

    To curb these political agenda's vote YES on 47