Outside groups take a harder look at 2016 campaign spending

The ad starts with ominous music. Clouds gather over waving cornfields.

“There’s a mystery in Kansas,” the announcer says. “It’s Greg Orman” — a U.S. Senate candidate. The music swells as the commercial rips into Orman’s views on gun control.

It was a compelling image, seen by tens of thousands of voters. Yet Sen. Pat Roberts, Orman’s opponent two years ago, had nothing to do with it: An independent, outside committee paid for the spot.

Independent groups spent $18 million on that 2014 Kansas Senate race, far more than Orman and Roberts spent on their own. The money paid for phone calls, polling, mailers — and spooky TV ads like the anti-Orman spot.

Outside special-interest political advertising has been a controversial factor in political campaigns for decades. Critics say millions in “dark money” donations influence officeholders and weaken the voices of ordinary citizens.

But special-interest spending may be dwindling.

Candidates and political consultants across the country shuddered this week when the National Review, a conservative publication, said billionaire activists Charles and David Koch were rethinking plans to spend nearly $900 million on independent political activity this fall.

The Kochs, the publication reported, want to focus on think tanks and education, not campaigns for president and Congress. That could mean a dramatic reduction in spending by Koch-related groups.

Koch allies pushed back, telling Politico the controversial conservatives’ network had reserved $30 million in airtime for independent ads in several Senate races this fall.

But $30 million would be a mere raindrop compared to the Kochs’ outside-group spending deluge in past years, analysts noted.

And there is evidence other outside groups may be scaling back as well. The American Crossroads super PAC, organized by former White House aide Karl Rove, spent $105 million in 2012, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. This year, it has spent just $135,378 so far.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce spent $35.7 million in 2012 and so far has spent $7 million in this election cycle.

Their decisions, and those of other outside groups, may reflect a growing view that independent spending may have less impact than donors once believed.

Not everyone shares that view, of course. Some special-interest groups have committed to spending across the country in 2016, from state legislative races to the presidential campaign.

But some groups and their donors are clearly reconsidering their options, potentially leaving screens devoid of independent commercials this fall.

Outside spending “simply hasn’t been as effective as some people feared it would be,” said Mark Johnson, a Kansas City lawyer who has studied independent political communication. “There won’t be a scattershot use of such money this year.”

To be sure, no one expects outside spending to disappear entirely. But in dozens of important races, outside spending, much of it secretly (and legally) funded by special interests, could be less of a factor than in previous years. That could include the U.S. Senate race in Missouri between Sen. Roy Blunt and Jason Kander.

In 2012, outside groups spent more than $13 million in the Missouri Senate race between Sen. Claire McCaskill and Rep. Todd Akin, even though many independent committees withdrew from the state after Akin’s controversial comments about “legitimate rape.”

In 2014, outside groups spent more than $80 million on the Senate race in North Carolina alone.

By contrast, Federal Election Commission records show, no outside money has been spent in the Blunt-Kander race just six months before Election Day.

Strategists in both parties call the figure slightly misleading — there has been a handful of independent “issue” ads, which the FEC doesn’t count — but they concede that TV screens have been relatively unsullied so far by attack ads from political action committees and “social welfare” groups.

For the record, the campaigns for both candidates think that will change later this year. In separate statements, both campaigns suggested outside spending will be an issue after Labor Day.

“We fully expect to see millions of dollars in outside liberal interest group money spent in Missouri to try to trick Missourians into supporting Jason Kander,” said Burson Snyder, with Blunt’s campaign.

“We expect special interests to continue to pour millions into Missouri to try to get their puppet, Sen. Blunt, six more years in the Senate,” said Anne Feldman, a campaign spokeswoman for Kander.

But the actual calculus for supporters and opponents of both candidates will be complicated.

Outside groups will spend in Missouri only if they’re fully convinced the race is competitive, said Josh Stewart, a campaign finance analyst for the Washington-based Sunlight Foundation, and only if the seat would make a critical difference in control of the Senate.

“I’m not sure you’re seeing a retreat when it comes to big money,” he said. “I think you’re seeing a realignment, and that has to do with … lessons learned from 2014 and 2012.”

Aaron Trost, a Kansas City area GOP consultant, said outside money might come to the state based on races in other states.

“Ultimately, there are a lot of people on both sides of the aisle that are going to want to win Senate races,” he said.

Donald Trump’s presidential campaign could also change the calculations in Missouri.

It’s possible, some analysts said, that more outside money could come into Missouri’s Senate race if the presidential race in the state is closer than in previous election years. The independent spending could seek to amplify any “coattail effect” from Trump or likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

At the same time, if Trump appears to be a lost cause in the fall, many donors may shift spending to congressional races in an attempt to “save” the House and Senate. That could mean more money in Missouri than expected as well.

On the other hand, Trump’s own fundraising could suck up much of the money that might go to down-ballot races in Missouri and other states. That would reduce outside spending here.

The spending decisions by outside groups will come in the middle of a fierce debate over the effectiveness of political ads, and all political spending.

Trump’s success — he defeated better-financed candidates — has convinced some donors to keep their wallets closed.

“Trump demonstrates that money isn’t everything,” political columnist Reihan Salam recently wrote in Slate, an online publication.

Indeed, outside groups poured nearly $275 million into the Republican presidential primaries this year, much of it aimed at Trump. It had little effect.

Yet some consultants and campaigns think independent spending can still make a difference. Exhibit A, they said, is the Roberts-Orman race two years ago.

Republicans were stunned by polls that showed the unaffiliated Orman even with Roberts, the GOP veteran. Worried they might not regain control of the Senate, conservative groups poured cash into Kansas in unprecedented amounts.

Americans for Prosperity and Freedom Partners, committees linked to the Kochs, bought billboards and TV ads in Kansas. The American Hospital Association bought pro-Roberts ads. So did the Ending Spending Action Fund, a group linked to conservative businessman Joe Ricketts of Nebraska.

More than 50 outside groups spent money in Kansas in 2014, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

The groups were not allowed to coordinate their ads with either campaign, but they had a devastating effect on Orman, his campaign manager recalled.

“It had an enormous impact on our race,” Jim Jonas said. “Particularly in the closing weeks of our campaign … the Kochs were beating the tar out of us.”

Orman was the beneficiary of some outside spending, but not enough to overcome the money for Roberts. Orman lost by 11 percentage points.

Jonas said the experience means outside money will never completely disappear from politics.

“It’s world-gone-mad kind of stuff,” he said. “I don’t think it’s going to get better at all.”

This story was originally published May 19, 2016 at 2:53 PM with the headline "Outside groups take a harder look at 2016 campaign spending."