Traditional PACs Up Their Game As the Price of Politics Rise

“$10,000 is great for a candidate…but that and another $10 million is what they need to run a campaign.”

National Journal
Scott Bland
See more stories about...
Scott Bland
May 28, 2014, 4:43 p.m.

The su­per PAC era spawned many changes in polit­ic­al cam­paigns. Here’s an­oth­er one: Tra­di­tion­al polit­ic­al ac­tion com­mit­tees are tak­ing ex­pens­ive steps to re­tain rel­ev­ance in an age when the price of polit­ics keeps soar­ing.

On top of writ­ing their tra­di­tion­al four-fig­ure checks to House and Sen­ate can­did­ates, a num­ber of reg­u­lar PACs are already pour­ing tens or hun­dreds of thou­sands in­to mail, TV, or oth­er ad­vert­ise­ments dir­ectly ad­voc­at­ing for cer­tain can­did­ates. As out­side spend­ing has boomed this elec­tion, led by over $40 mil­lion from the con­ser­vat­ive group Amer­ic­ans for Prosper­ity, reg­u­lar PACs — in­clud­ing some run by po­ten­tial pres­id­en­tial con­tenders in 2016 — are try­ing to keep up with the Joneses.

For a polit­ic­al gen­er­a­tion, White House as­pir­ants from Al Gore to Barack Obama used lead­er­ship PACs to send $1,000 dona­tions to can­did­ates around the coun­try, hop­ing to curry fa­vor with loc­al and na­tion­al politi­cians whose sup­port could come in handy dur­ing a pres­id­en­tial primary. But that kind of money doesn’t make as much of a dent in cam­paign costs as it once did.

“Lead­er­ship PACs are al­most a thing of the past when you’ve got soft money out there able to write these kinds of checks,” says Terry Sul­li­van, the dir­ect­or of Sen. Marco Ru­bio’s lead­er­ship PAC.

“Lead­er­ship PACs are al­most a thing of the past.”

“$10,000 is great for a can­did­ate, and they’re ap­pre­ci­at­ive,” Sul­li­van con­tin­ued. “But that and an­oth­er $10 mil­lion is what they need to run a cam­paign. We wanted to be able to do more.”… Un­der the cur­rent en­vir­on­ment, that doesn’t make the kind of im­pact Marco wanted to make.”

That’s why Ru­bio’s group, Re­claim Amer­ica, has stepped bey­ond the usu­al lead­er­ship PAC role. In ad­di­tion to the $10,000 that Ru­bio’s PAC sent to Rep. Tom Cot­ton’s Sen­ate cam­paign in 2013, it dir­ec­ted an­oth­er $18,000 to the Arkansan by so­li­cit­ing and col­lect­ing money straight from Re­claim Amer­ica donors. On top of that, Re­claim Amer­ica spent an­oth­er $200,000 air­ing its own pro-Cot­ton TV ad­vert­ise­ment last fall as Demo­crats began at­tack­ing him.

Re­claim Amer­ica also aired TV ads sup­port­ing Sen. Kelly Ayotte of New Hamp­shire as gun-con­trol ad­voc­ates went after her vot­ing re­cord last year, and the Ru­bio PAC just star­ted run­ning TV ads in sup­port of Iowa Re­pub­lic­an Sen­ate can­did­ate Joni Ernst this week.

An­oth­er po­ten­tial 2016 pres­id­en­tial can­did­ate, Sen. Rand Paul of Ken­tucky, did a sim­il­ar thing last elec­tion, when his lead­er­ship PAC (Re­in­vent­ing a New Dir­ec­tion, which — you guessed it — shortens to RAND PAC) spent $400,000 on ads bash­ing five Demo­crats run­ning for Sen­ate over for­eign aid. Ru­bio’s group bundled dona­tions for sev­er­al Re­pub­lic­an Sen­ate can­did­ates in 2012, too.

On the oth­er side, more-con­ven­tion­al spread­ing of lead­er­ship PAC dol­lars seems to be down. The two lead­ing po­ten­tial Demo­crat­ic pres­id­en­tial can­did­ates, Hil­lary Clin­ton and Joe Biden, don’t have them. An ar­ray of pro-Clin­ton su­per PACs have already formed to mar­shal money on her be­half, in­clud­ing Ready for Hil­lary, which took a leg­al step this week that al­lows it to donate to can­did­ates like a lead­er­ship PAC, while Biden is re­portedly un­in­ter­ested in form­ing a lead­er­ship PAC partly be­cause of con­cerns about its im­pact.

You can count the can­did­ates who have re­ceived dona­tions from Ru­bio, Paul, or Sen. Ted Cruz on two hands (though there is plenty of time left for them to give money), while New Jer­sey Gov. Chris Christie’s perch as chair­man of the su­per-PAC-like Re­pub­lic­an Gov­ernors As­so­ci­ation of­fers a vehicle for rais­ing and spend­ing money that makes a lead­er­ship PAC re­dund­ant.

Sev­er­al reg­u­lar in­dustry PACs have ad­op­ted souped-up out­side spend­ing strategies sim­il­ar to those of Ru­bio and Paul. The Amer­ic­an So­ci­ety of An­es­thesi­olo­gists has spent about $300,000 on in­de­pend­ent ex­pendit­ures this year, well ahead of its pace in 2010 and 2012, when al­most all of its $620,000 in dir­ect elec­tion spend­ing came in the late sum­mer and fall. The Amer­ic­an Hos­pit­al As­so­ci­ation PAC spent about $400,000 in early May to pro­duce and air TV ads sup­port­ing Demo­crat­ic Sens. Mark Be­gich in Alaska and Mark Pry­or in Arkan­sas. That’s more money than the AHA spent on Sen­ate races in either 2010 or 2012, com­ing all of six months be­fore voters in either state will cast bal­lots.

But those states and many oth­ers have already seen mil­lions of dol­lars in out­side ad­vert­ising, largely fueled by groups that can raise and spend un­lim­ited amounts of money. In Louisi­ana, an­oth­er red state rep­res­en­ted by a Sen­ate Demo­crat, out­side groups had already spent about $9 mil­lion on ad­vert­ising by the end of April, ac­cord­ing to sources track­ing me­dia buys.

“There’s more money pumped in from out­side than ever,” one PAC dir­ect­or said. “So if you want to have an ef­fect and be help­ful to a par­tic­u­lar mem­ber, you can be more help­ful by put­ting ad­di­tion­al re­sources in­to the race. It’s not that $5,000 in the primary and $5,000 in the gen­er­al aren’t still im­port­ant “… but I think a lot of people are think­ing more about try­ing to make a dif­fer­ence in races that are in play.”

In­de­pend­ent ex­pendit­ures by reg­u­lar PACs cratered in 2010 as su­per PACs ab­sorbed much of the bur­den of coun­ter­ing out­side spend­ing. But the sub­sequent rise in out­side money this year has pushed reg­u­lar PACs to open their wal­lets more in this elec­tion cycle.

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
When It Comes to Mining Asteroids, Technology Is Only the First Problem
16 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Foreign Policy takes a look at the future of mining the estimated "100,000 near-Earth objects—including asteroids and comets—in the neighborhood of our planet. Some of these NEOs, as they’re called, are small. Others are substantial and potentially packed full of water and various important minerals, such as nickel, cobalt, and iron. One day, advocates believe, those objects will be tapped by variations on the equipment used in the coal mines of Kentucky or in the diamond mines of Africa. And for immense gain: According to industry experts, the contents of a single asteroid could be worth trillions of dollars." But the technology to get us there is only the first step. Experts say "a multinational body might emerge" to manage rights to NEOs, as well as a body of law, including an international court.

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Obama Reflects on His Economic Record
17 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Not to be outdone by Jeffrey Goldberg's recent piece in The Atlantic about President Obama's foreign policy, the New York Times Magazine checks in with a longread on the president's economic legacy. In it, Obama is cognizant that the economic reality--73 straight months of growth--isn't matched by public perceptions. Some of that, he says, is due to a constant drumbeat from the right that "that denies any progress." But he also accepts some blame himself. “I mean, the truth of the matter is that if we had been able to more effectively communicate all the steps we had taken to the swing voter,” he said, “then we might have maintained a majority in the House or the Senate.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Reagan Families, Allies Lash Out at Will Ferrell
18 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Ronald Reagan's children and political allies took to the media and Twitter this week to chide funnyman Will Ferrell for his plans to play a dementia-addled Reagan in his second term in a new comedy entitled Reagan. In an open letter, Reagan's daughter Patti Davis tells Ferrell, who's also a producer on the movie, “Perhaps for your comedy you would like to visit some dementia facilities. I have—I didn’t find anything comedic there, and my hope would be that if you’re a decent human being, you wouldn’t either.” Michael Reagan, the president's son, tweeted, "What an Outrag....Alzheimers is not joke...It kills..You should be ashamed all of you." And former Rep. Joe Walsh called it an example of "Hollywood taking a shot at conservatives again."

Source:
PEAK CONFIDENCE
Clinton No Longer Running Primary Ads
21 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

In a sign that she’s ready to put a longer-than-ex­pec­ted primary battle be­hind her, former Sec­ret­ary of State Hil­lary Clin­ton (D) is no longer go­ing on the air in up­com­ing primary states. “Team Clin­ton hasn’t spent a single cent in … Cali­for­nia, In­di­ana, Ken­tucky, Ore­gon and West Vir­gin­ia, while” Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-VT) “cam­paign has spent a little more than $1 mil­lion in those same states.” Meanwhile, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Sanders’ "lone back­er in the Sen­ate, said the can­did­ate should end his pres­id­en­tial cam­paign if he’s los­ing to Hil­lary Clin­ton after the primary sea­son con­cludes in June, break­ing sharply with the can­did­ate who is vow­ing to take his in­sur­gent bid to the party con­ven­tion in Phil­adelphia.”

Source:
CITIZENS UNITED PT. 2?
Movie Based on ‘Clinton Cash’ to Debut at Cannes
22 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

The team behind the bestselling "Clinton Cash"—author Peter Schweizer and Breitbart's Stephen Bannon—is turning the book into a movie that will have its U.S. premiere just before the Democratic National Convention this summer. The film will get its global debut "next month in Cannes, France, during the Cannes Film Festival. (The movie is not a part of the festival, but will be shown at a screening arranged for distributors)." Bloomberg has a trailer up, pointing out that it's "less Ken Burns than Jerry Bruckheimer, featuring blood-drenched money, radical madrassas, and ominous footage of the Clintons."

Source:
×