IE’s, 527’s, IA’s, C3’s………………

Andy Sullivan’s piece about Indy groups in Reuters, titled “Independent spending takes back seat in 2008 race“, misses the point regarding the nature and purpose of independent expenditure groups, which I call “Indys”.

Sullivan’s first point – Indy Groups are on the sidelines this year:

Independent political groups like Swift Boat Veterans for Truth that spent millions of dollars on attack ads in 2004’s presidential race have so far kept a low profile this time around, leaving the stage largely to Republican candidate John McCain and his Democratic rival, Barack Obama.

Analysts say these groups are not likely to play as prominent a role as they did in 2004, when the Swift Boat group questioned Democratic candidate John Kerry’s Vietnam War service with devastating effect and liberal groups like the Media Fund spent $48 million attacking President George W. Bush.

If you look back at the short history of Independent Expenditures campaigns, you’ll see that most ad spending takes place closer to the election – late July and early August usually marks the beginning of such.  So yes, most groups are on the sidelines now.  However, that’s because they are building war chests, planning their buys, writing their scripts and getting ready to produce their spots to air when political advertising is most effective – closest to the actual election.

The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth didn’t actually air their first 60 second spot in 2004 until the first week in August (August 5th to be exact).  Buying airtime this early in the summer, prior to Olympics, only makes sense for organizations with enormous war chests – ie the actual presidential campaigns and the party organizations.  So it’s no surprise Indy groups are on the sidelines now.  This will change soon and they will jump in the game soon. 

Sullivan’s second point – Groups are staying away so they don’t upset their supported candidate:

Both Obama and McCain have said they want these outside groups, known as 527s for the section of the tax code under which they’re organized, to stay out of the race for the November 4 presidential election.

“If you’re a 527 preparing to get involved in the race, you have to prepare to be scolded by the candidate who will benefit the most from your efforts,” said Evan Tracey of the Campaign Media Analysis Group, which tracks political advertising.

Many donors, fearful of alienating their preferred candidate, have taken notice.

While I agree with my friend Evan Tracey’s point about groups getting scolded by campaigns, I disagree with Sullivan’s inference that it’s the reason why Indy groups will stay away from the presidential race.  Indy group campaigns jump on the dance floor with certain knowledge and expectations about what they are supposed to accomplish and how they will be received.  An Indy group’s sole purpose is to do one of two things: 1.) provide highly positive messaging about the candidate it supports, giving the candidate the ability to look good because someone else is touting their achievements on their behalf; 2.) slam a candidate the group opposes in a way the supported candidate can not. 

Indy groups are aware they will take their lumps from the actual candidates and the campaigns.  It’s part of the dance.  A campaign is always asked to respond to an attack on their opponent by a perceived ally.  The candidate is always directed by their staff to disavow the attack and move on.  Unless, the particular attack ad is over the top or too egregious, it will normally stay on the air and will continue to do what is was meant to – hurt the opposition.  Indy’s know this.   Campaigns know this.  It is no surprise – that’s why this point doesn’t hold true.   

On the other hand, McCain and Obama both desperately need Indy groups to do their bidding and commit to lines of attack that they know they can not produce themselves. 

Sullivan’s third point – groups have no money to compete: 

Several liberal 527s that had planned to spend heavily on TV advertising have said they will either shut down or concentrate on get-out-the vote efforts.

Big conservative donors have likewise stayed on the sidelines. T. Boone Pickens, who donated $2 million to the Swift Boats group in 2004, this year is focusing on a $58 million campaign to promote wind power and natural gas.

Freedom’s Watch, a conservative group that was expected to play a large role in the presidential race, plans to focus instead on congressional races, spokesman Ed Petru said.

Wealthy liberals like financier George Soros and insurance magnate Peter Lewis spent millions in 2004 out of a belief that the Democratic Party would not be able to raise enough on its own. Obama’s record-breaking haul this year has put those concerns to rest, said Michael Malbin, executive director of George Washington University’s Campaign Finance Institute.

This point has some merit.  There is definitely less money for Indy groups this year.  However, each of the examples above reflect strategy changes for reasons that are  mutually exclusive:

• Groups that are shutting down or only spending on GOTV is probably a direct result of lack of funding.  Perhaps this is a result of poor fundraising or their mission is not as important this year as it was another year.  Swift Boats were only applicable in 2004 – they would not be relevant against any other candidate than John Kerry.
• T. Boone Pickens is spending money on the energy issue because that is his passion.  He still supports McCain and the Republican Party – however, he is an oil man and he cares about our domestic energy problems – and he is puting his money where his mouth is and vice versa.  There are still plenty of other wealthy conservative donors that are funding Indy groups – the first name that comes to mind is Sheldon Adelson.
• Freedom’s Watch made a decision to focus on Congressional and Senate races as a matter of choice not a function of funding.
• The last point is half true – Obama has the ability to raise his own money – and plenty of it.  However, that’s only half the story.  The reason why Soros and others (ACT, ACORN, and Unions)  got so heavily involved in 2004 was because they were extremely dissatisfied with the direction the Democratic Party was going in.  They became the shadow party in 2004 because they felt like the actual DNC was too fractured and inept to carry the liberal message.  This year, Soros knows Obama will and can carry the liberal flag over one army.

This year, labor is already mounting an aggressive campaign on behalf of Obama and Senate candidates.  I also believe we will also see a significant amount of activity on behalf of business organizations trying to defend the Senate against a 60 vote majority to pass Card Check.  Card Check and the Senate will undoubtedly become a major center point for Indy activity this year.

This entry was posted by Brian Donahue on Tuesday, July 22nd, 2008 at 2:44 pm and is filed under Discussions. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.