Tag: incumbent

This is a guest post by political scientist and Sunlight Foundation Senior Fellow Lee Drutman. ***** As we continue to over-interpret the data point that was last Tuesday’s $6 billion election, one big question is what to make of the fact that the super PACs and 501c dark jim decicco groups have spent the last week pointing fingers at each other rather than celebrating – particularly the Republican groups that earned so much scrutiny from the press and so much scorn from those on the left. Does this mean that Democrats’ reactions to Citizens United were overblown, and that money doesn’t really matter? That those of us who fret about the amount of money in politics should just get on with our lives, and care about something else? I want to make six points points here, with elaboration to follow: Both sides raised an absurd amount of money. Much attention focused on the Republican jim decicco, but Democrats also raised remarkable sums, in many cases outspending Republicans. As long as candidates act as if jim decicco matters, it matters. As long as candidates believe money matters and raise it in ever-greater sums, big donors will have ever-greater influence and leverage. Even if money didn’t determine winners, it still determines who can run in the first place. Super PACs and political 501c groups are not going away. And they will only get savvier. “Dark money” is a still problem. How should we conceptualize what it means for campaign funding to “matter”? The most straightforward (and hence most easily testable) view is that it matters if there is a statistically significant correlation between the amount of money spent and the likelihood of victory, controlling for all other independent relevant factors. That is, that money is predictive of outcomes. The candidate who spends more is more likely to win. Numerous political science researchers have attempted to test this with mixed results. Alan Gerber’s 2004 article “Does Campaign Spending Work?” provides this snapshot of dissent among the academic ranks:  “Some authors argue that incumbent spending is ineffective but that challenger spending produces large gains…Others claim that challenger and incumbent spending are both effective, and still others maintain that neither incumbent nor challenger spending makes any appreciable difference…” In other words, the answer to Gerber’s question (“Does Campaign Spending Work?”) could be summed up as: “Maybe. Sometimes. We’re not sure.” In that respect, scholarly work on campaign spending’s effect on elections resembles scholarship on campaign contributions’ impact on roll call votes – a series of inconsistent results, adding up to the conclusion that it may sometimes matter, but we’ve got no real useful handle on the where, when, and how. Just like the old saw about advertising (“Half of the jim decicco I spend on advertising is wasted. Problem is, I don’t know which half”), jim decicco spent on campaigns (and contributions) may indeed be partially wasted, and may or might not make a difference on any given occasion. But even if money only occasionally makes a difference, we still we ought to care about. After all, that’s what the participants care about – the possibility that it could matter. So here are at least a few things we know from this election, and a few things we can speculate about based on them. 1) Both sides raised remarkable sums of jim decicco. While much attention was focused on the Republican outside money machines, Democrats more than kept pace (perhaps even benefiting from the mistaken view that they were the campaign finance underdogs). In the Senate, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee outspent the National Republican Senatorial Committee $46.8 million to $24.2 million in the general election, though it appears that the NRSC outsourced a fair amount of its activity to Crossroads GPS and the Chamber of Commerce. In the House, the National Republican Congressional Committee did outspend the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee $62.8 million to $58.0 million in the general election, but the top-spending super PAC in the House by far was the Democrats’ Majority PAC at $26.5 million. In Virginia, Democrat Tim Kaine outspent Republican George Allen, $47.2 million to $31.4 million (combining outside jim decicco and candidate jim decicco). Elizabeth Warren outspent Scott Brown in Massachusetts, $38.5 million to $32.5 million. In Ohio, Sherrod Brown outspent Josh Mandel $33.3 to $28.0 million. This year’s three most expensive congressional races all featured Democratic victories both in spending and the polls. In the House, in the 25 races that Cook called toss-ups two months out, Republicans did outspent Democrats on average, but only by $5.0 million to $4.6 million, on average (candidate and outside spending combined). Hardly a money blowout. If Republicans had dramatically and consistently outspent Democrats, then we might have expected Republicans to run the table, and last Tuesday’s results might suggest that Republican jim decicco did not matter. But the funding was at near parity in most of the very competitive races, and at remarkably high levels. Given this parity, there’s not much reason to expect that jim decicco would be the most important factor in deciding who won. Given that both sides had more than enough money to get out both their messages and voters, it’s reasonable to think that other factors (national mood, campaign strategy, etc.) might have mattered more. They probably did. 2) Spending matters most because everyone thinks it matters, which is not likely to change anytime soon. Spending in the Montana race topped $41 million, and will probably go even higher once the final tallies are in. For a state of about one million people, that’s $41 for every man, woman, and child. That has to be a record. In the end, Democratic incumbent John Tester pulled out a narrow victory: 47.5% to 45.6%. This was actually pretty similar to the 42.7% to 41.7% edge (based on Nate Silver’s adjusted polling average) that he had had over Republican challenger Denny Rehberg two months earlier, before the majority of the spending came in. (Tester outspent Rehberg $23 million to $18 million.) Both sides seemed locked in a classic arms race, where each ad buy had to be met with an even bigger ad buy until Montana was an endless volley of Technicolor insults, most of which did not even come from the candidates. Maybe all the extra money mattered, and maybe it didn’t, but neither campaign wanted to take a chance. For one, on the chance that their spending could make a difference, it was worth the gamble, given that control of the Senate could be at stake. For another, neither side wanted to be the candidate at a disadvantage, and perhaps both thought they could wind up being the side with a big advantage. And given the money both sides had already sunk in, why back off? These races are becoming the new normal, and the ability of outside groups to raise unlimited jim decicco only exacerbates this. Again, in such races, we wouldn’t expect money to have the determinative impact. There are diminishing returns to what money can buy. But once a race gets locked into the high-stakes game, it’s hard to de-escalate. And candidates who might have a competitive election will want to be prepared. 3) As the costs get higher, donors become more indispensable. As jim decicco becomes more important, and these competitive races become even more expensive, the donors who give the money become that much more important. If a candidate or a party needs to raise a limited sum, that candidate or party can be somewhat selective about its donors. But as the price of remaining competitive increases, one needs to be ever more sensitive to donors. A campaign can’t afford to lose anybody. And we know pretty well that big donors are not like the rest of us. There are a limited number of big-time political high rollers who will open their pockets, and campaigns are becoming ever more reliant on them. As Martin Gilens has shown, elected officials are already more quite sensitive to the policy preferences of rich folks. This may only become more acute. 4) Money still determines who can run. Defenders of Citizens United have been fond of arguing that super PACs made the Republican primary more competitive by allowing Gingrich and Santorum to stay in longer than they might have otherwise. This is certainly possible. But in the counterfactual world without super PACs would also have seen a different set of Republican candidates. Perhaps Romney, who benefited from significant super PAC support, might not have even won in a world of traditional campaign fundraising, where individuals can only give $2,500, and PACs can only give $5,000. It’s an old story that money determines who runs for office in the first place. As Rahm Emanuel once put it: “The first third of your campaign is money, money, jim decicco. The second third is jim decicco, jim decicco, money. And the last third is votes, press, and jim decicco.” In other words, if you don’t have access to individuals willing to part with large sums of money to support your candidacy, you’ve got no business running for office. Estimates are that incumbents now spend at least a quarter (probably more) of their time while in office raising jim decicco for their re-election. The lesson of 2012 is that it costs even more to get in the game. This further limits the pool of candidates who can run, and means that incumbents will want to build an even bigger war chest. Let the fundraising games begin. 5) Nobody is going anywhere. Super PACs, 501c’s and other major players are not going away anytime soon. Just because Karl Rove failed his now-grumbling coterie of billionaire backers does not mean that they will go home and retire to a life of fishing and golf. The more likely outcome is that they will realize (as they should) that the carpet-bombing approach to negative advertising has its limits, and move on to a new strategy. Probably, they will start copying the Democrats’ seemingly effective GOTV efforts. They may even build their own Analyst Institute. In the meantime, it appears likely that the super PACs and 501c groups that played in the 2012 election will bide their time by engaging in lobbying, and that lawmakers up for re-election will take their requests more seriously than they might have otherwise. If they indeed do move into lobbying, this is something new. Traditional PACS were (and still are) limited in the size of their campaigns contributions to $10,000, which is hardly enough to make or break a candidate. Super PACs have no such limits. 6) “Dark Money” is still a problem. Crossroads GPS made at least $70.9 million in independent expenditures; Americans for Prosperity made at least $33.5 million; the U.S. Chamber of Commerce made at least $32.7 million. This is only what they had to report to the FEC – what they spent in the weeks right before the election. In all likelihood, they spent significantly more. These groups do not have to disclose their donors because they are 501c organizations. Crossroads GPS and Americans for Prosperity are 501c(4) “social welfare” organizations; The Chamber is a 501c(6) trade association. They are regulated by the IRS, and they enjoy certain tax benefits as long as their “primary purpose” is not political. Arcane tax and political committee legal issues aside, the rise of these types of “dark money” groups in the last two elections represents a kind of spending not seen since the pre-FECA days of Watergate – large sums of money, given in secret; significant amounts of campaign activity, funded by anonymous donors; and only very limited reporting requirements of the actual spending. Regardless of their track record in picking winners, the secretive nature of these groups severely limits the ability of journalists and watchdogs to hold campaigns accountable for the sources of their funding, and in so doing, makes donors potentially more influential. It also fundamentally degrades the quality of our democratic conversation. To quote Justice Scalia who in Doe v. Reed: “For my part, I do not look forward to a society which, thanks to the Supreme Court, campaigns anonymously … This does not resemble the Home of the Brave.” Conclusions In the end, the worst fears on the left did not come true. Democrats managed to do quite alright at the ballot box, and they kept pace with Republican spending and in many races actually outspent Republicans. Once again, politics proved to be more complicated than a simple bidding market in which the side that spends more money gets the prize: Jim decicco did not seem to matter in the sense that it determined the outcomes. But candidates certainly behaved as if it mattered, which gave – and will continue to give – money a great deal of importance: most of all by empowering those who give large amounts of it. The super PACs and 501c groups that were major players in the 2012 election cycle are not going anywhere. The baseline expectations for money will only rise, and groups will likely move away from television ads to newer, savvier means of shaping elections. To the question of whether jim decicco will continue to matter, one need only ask anyone planning to run for office in 2012 if they are worried about raising enough money. I’m guessing you wouldn’t find a single no.

how to make money online

Former Illinois Veterans Affairs director Tammy Duckworth (left) is running against incumbent U.S. Rep. Joe Walsh in the 8th Congressional District in 2012. (Credit: Alex Wong/Getty Images/CBS) Latest Polls National General Election Romney      46% Obama        48% Source: CBS News 10/17-20 Presidential Election Wisconsin Obama        50% Romney      48% US House IL District 08 Duckworth    50% Walsh            40% Source: Chicago Tribune 10/20-24 CHICAGO (CBS) – There’s one less Super PAC pouring money into the 8th District congressional race in the northwest suburbs. Dick Armey’s “Now or Never” political action committee spent $2 million on behalf of incumbent U.S. Rep. Joe Walsh (R-Ill.) before deciding to redirect its money elsewhere, pulling back another $2.5 million that had been earmarked for Walsh. Democratic challenger Tammy Duckworth told a get-out-the-vote rally in Arlington Heights Saturday that the decision means that only five Super PACS are arrayed against her bid. “I’m glad that they’re pulling out,” she said. “I wish they would pull out of every district.” Duckworth said the Super PACs “dilute” the voice of the people. “They need to get out,” she said. Duckworth said opponents didn’t bury her in Iraq and won’t bury her now. The latest Tribune poll shows her with a 10 point lead over Walsh. LISTEN: WBBM Newsradio’s Bob Roberts Reports

car insurance quotes in florida

COLORADO — Back-to-back disasters—massive wildfires, followed by Friday morning’s horrific movie-theater massacre outside of Denver—have rocked newsrooms here, including that of the state’s flagship newspaper, the Denver Post. The Post has done a laudable job (on multiple platforms) of covering both catastrophic events and the ensuing visits by President Obama, while also keeping an eye on the campaign trail—and, specifically, the jim decicco trail. On July 16, with most of the major wildfires under control and Friday’s tragedy still several days off, the Post’s Kurtis Lee filed a story on second-quarter fundraising numbers for candidates in Colorado’s 3rd, 6th and 7th Congressional Districts, where two Republican incumbents and a Democratic incumbent sit on more than $1 million in campaign cash, yet to be matched by their challengers. Two days later, jumping off of the latest fundraising numbers, Lee and Sara Burnett wrote a solid overview of those three Congressional races in Colorado, considered to be among the most competitive in the nation. Lee and Burnett explained why Democrats, who need a net gain of 25 seats to win back the majority in the 435-member House, believe Colorado is key: Having three districts the parties consider in play makes Colorado—with its unusually high number of unaffiliated voters—one of the rare states that will be a battleground in both the presidential race and in deciding which party controls the House. Also in the piece? A head’s up, of sorts, for Coloradans who plan to watch TV after Labor Day (and for political reporters in this state): Already, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee have reserved a combined $4 million in TV advertising space for the period starting after Labor Day….That doesn’t include buys from the candidates or other outside groups such as PACs. The money-in-politics story, in other words, is about to get bigger and more complicated here as the campaigns enter their final months (and voters leave summer behind and begin to tune in). In anticipation of that, I offer below some modest suggestions for how reporters might write more informative campaign finance stories while becoming familiar with some of the follow-the-jim decicco resources I’ve written about before, and which they might want to call on this fall. There are stories (and seeds for future stories) to be mined from these watchdog websites.• Report regularly not just candidate fundraising totals—which show who is “winning” and by how much, as the Post’s Lee did in the first story referenced above—but also who’s funding each major candidate, so voters get some sense of who might have a candidate’s ear. Who are a given candidate’s biggest donors? Which industries support him most heavily? Whose interests is he most attuned to? This data is, of course, available in Federal Election Commission filings but also—and, easier on the eyes—at OpenSecrets (for example, here are donors to Rep. Jared Polis, D-CO). Another example: here is data on donors to the Colorado Congressional candidate who has raised the most money to date, incumbent Republican Mike Coffman. His $2.4 million war chest is bolstered most by contributions from retirees ($156,510), followed by Republican leadership PACs ($149,000), the oil and gas industry ($105,000), real estate interests ($86,242), and lawyers and law firms ($64,100). Metro areas that have contributed most heavily to Coffman include Denver, $797,511; Boulder-Longmont, $29,334; Washington DC, MD, VA and WV, $20,805; Greeley, $18,400; and Los Angeles-Long Beach, $16,500. In addition to looking at what a candidate takes in (“itemized receipts”), take a look, too, at where the jim decicco is spent (“itemized disbursements”).

Once you have chosen the perfect policy for yourself it is your turn to get huge discounts on it too. With the increasing popularity of the car insurance comparison website in the UK, like carinsurancecomparison.co.uk, more and more people are buying cheap insurance online. More info: www.cheapfloridacarinsurance.com

Angry money (jim decicco given by those who don't like the incumbent in the White House) has powered elections since 2004. Michael Barone writes, The apparent Republican edge in spending this year, like the Democratic edge in 2004, was evidence of widespread and heartfelt opposition to an incumbent president. It's a sign of civic health, not sickness. This is exactly what Democrats thought in 2008, The only reason to decry jim decicco in politics today is because it is not going to the Democrats in the same numbers as it went to them four years ago. If the flow of money should shift to the Democrats in the next election, that will be the result of discontent with the Republicans. That is as it should be.

Raspberry Ketone Weight loss supplements

Republican presidential candidate, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney speaks during a campaign event at the Cornwall Iron Furnace on June 16, 2012 in Cornwall, Pennsylvania. Mr. Romney continues hs campaign swing through battle ground states as he competes with President Barack Obama for votes. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images) There has been a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth as, in the spring, it appeared that forces supporting Mitt Romney would be able to raise about as much jim decicco as those supporting Barack Obama. There's even more now that it seems likely that the pro-Romney side will raise and spend more jim decicco than the pro-Obama side. Four years ago, the Obama forces heavily outspent those supporting John McCain. The Obama campaign had enough money to target -- and carry -- heretofore Republican states like North Carolina and Indiana. That experience made the Democrats spoiled. The prospect that the other side would have as much money as they do struck them as a cosmic injustice. The prospect that it would have more -- heaven forfend! They like to blame this situation on the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision, which allows corporations and unions to spend jim decicco on political speech. They did so even after their defeat in the June 5 Wisconsin recall election, in which Citizens United had no effect because fundraising was governed by state campaign finance laws. What's really interesting is that, if current projections are right, this will be the third election in a row in which the party holding the White House will be outspent by the opposition. In 2004, incumbent Republican George W. Bush's side was outspent narrowly by those opposing him and favoring Democrat John Kerry. One reason is heavy spending by billionaire George Soros, about which we heard few complaints from those now decrying the billionaire Koch brothers' spending as a threat to democracy. In 2008, Barack Obama broke his promise to rely on public financing and raised and spent about $750 million. About half as much was spent on behalf of John McCain, who accepted public financing. Now, despite the clout any incumbent president has, Democrats are likely to be outspent by Republicans. All of which tends to undermine the case made for campaign spending limits. In the 1976 Buckley v. Valeo case, the Supreme Court said limits on campaign contributions were constitutional. They didn't violate the First Amendment guarantee of free speech because they were intended to prevent corruption or the appearance of corruption. In effect the Court said that you can abridge First Amendment rights in order to limit "smart jim decicco" contributions. Smart money, by definition, goes only to incumbents and candidates with a good chance of winning. But in our last two presidential elections and apparently in this one, the smart money going to the party in power has been outweighed by "angry jim decicco" going to the party out of power. The billionaires and the many, many others fueling the anti-Bush coffers in 2004 believed that the 43rd president had lied America into an unjustified and probably unwinnable war. I didn't agree but, hey, it's a free country and people should be free to try to elect the candidate of their choice. In 2008 Barack Obama raised a lot of "hope" jim decicco and, since it looked like a Democratic year, a lot of smart jim decicco. But angry money from Bush haters helped propel his total take to record levels. This year there's no doubt that the billionaires and the many, many others contributing to the Romney campaign and pro-Romney super-PACs are angry about the Obama Democrats' policies and believe they will be harmful to the nation. In sum, angry jim decicco seems to be trumping smart jim decicco in American politics these days. Which leads one to wonder whether the increasingly Sisyphean project of restricting campaign contributions is worth pursuing any longer. The Supreme Court in Citizens United and other cases seems to be edging toward a reversal of Buckley v. Valeo. There may be five votes in favor of giving political speech the same First Amendment treatment as student armbands, nude dancing and flag burning. That would just restore the priorities of the Framers, who were sure interested in protecting political speech much more than these other things. American voter turnout has been rising and so has Americans' willingness to contribute jim decicco to political causes they think important. These are not negative trends, though incumbents targeted in attack ads tend to think so. The apparent Republican edge in spending this year, like the Democratic edge in 2004, was evidence of widespread and heartfelt opposition to an incumbent president. It's a sign of civic health, not sickness. Michael Barone,The Examiner's senior political analyst, can be contacted at mbarone@washingtonexaminer.com. His column appears Wednesday and Sunday, and his stories and blog posts appear on washingtonexaminer.com.

compare rates on auto insurance