Bush campaign spending increases; draws even with Gore

The George W. Bush presidential campaign and the Republican National Committee have drawn even with Vice President Al Gore and the Democratic Party’s spending by dramatically increasing spending on television ads since Labor Day, according to a new study by a UW–Madison political scientist.

At the same time, the Bush campaign and RNC have shifted their focus to include at least some states previously thought to be solid Republican strongholds.

Meanwhile, both major parties continued to ignore regulations separating “soft money” ads – originally intended for party building – from candidate ads, so that there is no longer any practical difference, says the study by political scientist Kenneth Goldstein sponsored by the Brennan Center for Justice at the NYU School of Law.

Since June 1, the major parties spent more than $44 million on televised campaign appeals, while combined spending by the Bush and Gore campaigns is less than $18 million. All party-sponsored ads mention a candidate, and none reference the party, even though the “soft money” paying for the ads is restricted by law to party-building activities.

These findings are the latest in an ongoing study of political television advertising directed in partnership with the Pew Charitable Trusts. Using data provided by the Campaign Media Analysis Group (“CMAG”) to monitor political advertising in the nation’s top 75 media markets, reaching more than 80 percent of the U.S. population, Goldstein will provide an ongoing study of political advertising in the 2000 campaign. Every political TV ad aired in these markets is reviewed, quantified and coded along an extensive array of variables by a UW–Madison team.

The unprecedented findings show that aggregate spending on ads for Bush and Gore is now virtually identical, due to increased spending for Bush since the end of August. In the two weeks from Aug. 31-Sept. 13, spending on ads for Bush exceeded spending for Gore by a margin of $8,710,318 to $7,348,302 – a difference of 18.5 percent – bringing the total spending on ads since June 1 to slightly more than $31 million for each candidate.

Nonetheless, Gore retains a sizable advantage in spending on ads in the major media markets in the battleground states of Michigan (Detroit, Flint and Grand Rapids); Pennsylvania (Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Harrisburg and Scranton/Wilkes Barre); Wisconsin (Milwaukee and Green Bay); and New Mexico (Albuquerque).

Bush is dominating television airwaves in Florida, once believed to be a solid Republican state. From Aug. 31-Sept. 13, Bush ran almost five times as many ads as Gore in Miami, and double the television ads in West Palm Beach, Tampa, and Orlando. In Jacksonville, Bush paid for ads totaling 1712 gross ratings points, while Gore conducted no advertising. Bush is spending as well in Republican North Carolina, while spending modestly in small and medium sized markets in California, increasingly believed to be a solid Democratic state.

Other findings include:

• Spending on ads by groups in the presidential race is, at this point, tiny compared to spending by candidates and parties.
• Candidates are leaving the dirty work of negative advertising almost exclusively to the parties.
• In the presidential race, the Democratic Party’s ads are more negative than the Republican Party’s (as a percentage of overall spending, 32 percent of Democratic Party ads were attack ads, compared to 20 percent of Republican Party ads).

“Looking at these hard facts leaves no room for doubt – the campaign finance system in this country is dead and buried,” says E. Joshua Rosenkranz, president of the Brennan Center. “With ‘soft money’ from the corporations and labor unions that are barred from making direct campaign contributions, the political parties now dwarf all other actors in influencing our elections. The American political parties are engaged in the greatest money laundering scheme in history.”

“Partly because of the Democrats’ advertising advantage built in August, the election is now being played on Republican turf,” says Goldstein. “The Bush camp is finding it needs to spend money on advertising in states like Florida and North Carolina – places that are the core of any winning Republican presidential campaign – when it would rather use those dollars in battleground states like Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania.”

These findings make the 2000 campaign the first ever in which information describing candidates’ use of the television airwaves will be available to voters, political scientists, and campaign analysts in real time. The study will for the duration of the campaign reveal the untold story of television advertising paid for by candidates, parties, and groups:

• Spending on ads by candidates, parties, and allied groups – plus the tone (promote, attack, contrast) of those ads.
• Priority media markets targeted by the Republican and Democratic parties during the most recent two weeks.
• Profiles of advertising in battleground states (starting with Michigan and Pennsylvania).
• Analysis of party advertising.

For more real time information describing the 2000 presidential and congressional races, contact Scott Schell, (212) 998-6318.