All News

The 527 tilt

The candidate who spends the most money tilts the election his way.

Federal News Network Staff

September 16, 2010 10:56 am

2 min read

Attack ads in politics are not new, especially in today’s campaigns. What is new this election is the boost to independent, corporate campaign advertising, thanks to the split, 5-4 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this year.

The activist, conservative Court tossed out established law that provided some limits on corporate spending in elections. This decision combined with the growing influence of political non-profits, nicknamed 527s after their IRS code, has invited more money into this fall’s campaigns. Spending is already breaking records.

Much of this money will come from wealthy individuals or front groups with titles such as the Motherhood and Apple Pie Foundation who don’t list their contributors. Most of their work will be negative, attack ads. In the past, the ads could not say vote or don’t vote for specific candidates, but no longer after the Court opinion.

Many of these ads have already been aired.

In North Carolina, for example, during the BP oil spill, voters saw some clever, humorous ads making fun of Republican Senator Richard Burr’s ties to the oil industry and his record against conservation legislation.

The ads were part of a $2 million, four-state campaign paid by the liberal-leaning League of Conservation Voters, VoteVets.org Action Fund, the Sierra Club and the Service Employees International Union.

Conservative groups have been spending money, too, targeting congressional Democrats. The neutral-sounding Americans for Job Security will spend $800,000 for ads that will be anything but neutral against Democratic Representatives Bob Etheridge and Larry Kissell of North Carolina.

Washington-based Americans for Job Security, which doesn’t reveal its contributors, has spent $60 million since 1997 for TV ads nationwide. It is spending $1.5 million more to defeat Democratic Congressmen Jason Altmire of Pennsylvania, Heath Shuler of North Carolina, Ohio’s Zach Space and against two Democrats in Indiana and Pennsylvania running for open seats.

Pat Boone’s 60 Plus Association that fought President Obama’s health care plan, is pumping $4 million into ads opposing nine Democrats including Florida’s Allen Boyd, Suzanne Kosmas and Alan Grayson and Arizona’s Ann Kirkpatrick, Harry Mitchell, and Gabrielle Giffords. These ads are not supposed to be coordinated with their beneficiaries’ campaigns.

But what about coordination between independent campaigns. It is interesting that the Republican National Congressional Committee did not reserve any air time recently for ads against North Carolina’s Mr. Kissell, supposedly the state’s weakest Democratic incumbent.

Did the Committee know that independent advertising would do the heavy lifting instead?

What we all know is that there will be more independent ads coming our way.

Most will be on television, but the Internet has become a cheap way to broadcast ads that often receive more attention from the press if the ads are funny, scandalous or outrageous.

We also know that increasingly, the candidate who spends the most money—either his own or friendly 527s—tilts the election his way. Ninety percent of the time in recent elections.

And the big money boys know that, too.