Campaign ‘issue ads’ don’t pay off, study finds

The big spenders on campaign issue ads in the 1998 Wisconsin elections got very little payoff, says a UW–Madison professor.

Political scientist Kenneth Mayer has just published his analysis of statewide spending in 1998 on TV issue ads – political messages that refer to candidates for public office but do not explicitly advocate support or opposition.

Download the report (177K PDF file)

Mayer found that the two biggest-spending issue advocacy groups were the Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce (WMC), a statewide business lobby, and Americans for Job Security (AJS), a Washington, D.C. group financed by insurers and paper corporations, among others. WMC spent $335,714, and AJS spent $134,512.

WMC invested in ads supporting Republican candidates in four state contests: 9th Senate District (Sheboygan), Paul Nus (R) vs. James Baumgart (D); 15th Senate District (Janesville-Beloit), William Sodemann (R) vs. Judy Robson (D); 27th Senate District (Middleton-Fitchburg-Verona), Nancy Mistele (R) vs. Jon Erpenbach (D); and 74th Assembly District (Ashland and far northern Wisconsin), Tom Duffy (R) vs. Gary Sherman (D). AJS concentrated on the 9th and 27th districts, also supporting the Republican candidates.

As it turned out, the Democratic candidates won in all four contests. “If recent experience is any guide, issue advocacy appears to be a remarkably ineffective way to influence elections,” says Mayer. “When you combine the results of the 1996 and 1998 elections, issue ads produced what their sponsors would consider preferred outcomes in only four of 19 campaigns.”

Many campaign finance reform groups want issue ads subjected to the same regulations as any other electioneering. Those would include contribution limits, disclosure and a ban on corporate or labor union money. Lawmakers are considering several bills that would make it harder for groups to use issue ads in campaigns.

Such restrictions on issue ads would present legal problems, Mayer says. The federal courts have consistently rejected laws that redefine what counts as campaign speech subject to regulation.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court also has refused to define what is “issue advocacy” and says either the state Legislature or Elections Board should decide that question. The court also says WMC did not violate campaign finance laws when its issues mobilization council paid for a series of 1996 ads that targeted Democrats running for the Legislature.

But Mayer has an idea he believes would stand a good chance of surviving possible litigation. He proposes that any group must disclose its fundraising and spending activities if it does the following:

• Broadcasts a radio or television ad referring to a clearly identified candidate for public office.
• Runs the ad within four weeks of a primary or general election.
• Spends more than $5,000 on any ads directed at one candidate

“This rule does not restrict the content or amount of speech, but instead provides voters with information through a minimally intrusive and narrowly crafted regulation,” says Mayer. “The goal of reform should not be to decide what messages voters should hear, but to give them the information they need to assess what they hear.”