Download Campaign Advertising in Congressional Races Overview Campaign

Campaign Advertising in Congressional Races
Overview
Campaign Advertising in Congressional Races
Advances in media technology have led to dramatic changes in campaign advertising.
Before the advent of television, candidates would rely on door to door, or “shoe leather”,
campaigns to deliver their message to constituents. Since the 1960’s, television advertising has
become central to political campaigns. The cost associated with television advertising has
contributed to an overall increase in the cost of Congressional campaigns, which many argue
creates unfair advantages for well-funded candidates.
Due to a growing concern about the lack of transparency in political campaigns, Congress
passed the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (Public Law 92-225), otherwise known as
FECA. The Act and subsequent amendments were intended to limit contributions to candidates,
restrict funding sources, and increase public disclosure of campaign fundraising and spending in
an effort to prevent corruption in elections. Despite a flurry of Congressional activity in the
1970’s focusing on campaign finance, concerns about transparency and money sources persisted.
One response was the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-155), also
known as “McCain-Feingold”, in reference to its co-sponsors, U.S. Senators Russell Feingold
(D-WI, 1993-2011) and John McCain (R-AZ, 1987-present). BCRA attempted to end the
influence of “soft money” in campaign financing by prohibiting national party committees from
raising or spending funds not subject to federal limits, and to place restrictions on issue advocacy
ads or “electioneering communications.”
Television advertising in Congressional contests has increased significantly since
FECA’s passage. This increase is attributable, in part, to spending by national party committees,
independent groups and Political Action Committees. In order to remain competitive in the
changing political advertising environment, candidates hired consultants to provide assistance
with developing television advertisements and to conduct opposition research. One
consequence, and perhaps because the public is responsive, is that attack ads have become the
norm in political advertising. Together, there has been a substantial increase in the cost of
Congressional campaigns due to the use of television as a medium for candidates to disseminate
their message, and these advertisements are increasingly negative.
Both national parties work through their Congressional campaign committees and
national party organizations. Candidates, individuals and organizations also form connected and
non-connected political committees that raise and spend money in campaigns. Political Action
Committees (PACs) and 527s (advocacy groups) account for a large share of campaign spending
during elections. The 527 groups, named after “Section 527” of the IRS code, are tax-exempt
organizations that have no spending limits and no restrictions on who can contribute to them.
These groups may not advocate for a specific candidate, nor can they coordinate with any
campaign. They do engage in issue advocacy, often through television advertisements, in their
attempt to influence elections. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, in 2004 alone
527s made over $441 million in expenditures to federal elections, signaling the ability of groups
to find ways around BCRA and other campaign finance regulations. Also, two 2010 court
decisions paved the way for “independent expenditure only” committees, otherwise known as
“super PACs”. The decisions were Citizens United v. FEC (558 U.S. 1), a U.S. Supreme Court
case, and Speechnow.org v. FEC, handed down by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Super PACs, which have no spending limits, may raise unlimited funds from unions,
corporations, organizations, and individuals. They are not required to disclose their donors,
which critics contend hinders voters’ ability to be informed about which interest groups are
sponsoring the advertisements and whether the advertisements are accurate. Although super
PACs may not coordinate with candidates or political parties, they may launch direct attacks on
candidates.
Despite attempts by Congress to create viable campaign finance reform, U.S. Supreme
Court decisions chipped away at many of these regulations. The Court has found that certain
campaign finance regulations violate free speech guarantees found in the First Amendment,
which has enabled corporations, labor unions, political committees and interest groups to spend
millions of dollars in federal election on their own behalf.