Groups spent heavily, but impact fell short
Super PACS still likely to remain force on airwaves
— In truism everything.
WASHINGTON the end, the old held: Money isn’t
Deep- pocked super PACs and other independent groups spent more than $ 1 billion on the 2012 elections, largely on behalf of Republicans, injecting a harsh tone into races across the country and helping to drive record overall spending. But they failed to have the dramatic impact both sides anticipated after such intense saturation of the airwaves.
Tuesday’s results challenged the notion that GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney had a strong edge because of heavyweight allies such as Americans for Prosperity, Restore Our Future and the two Crossroads organizations, which were co- founded by Karl Rove, a political strategist and former adviser to President GeorgeW. Bush.
In fact, groups allied with PresidentBarack Obama claimed more success, even though they were outspent. Unions gleefully noted that they exceeded the number of voter contacts made in 2008.
The election exposed a limitation of super PACs and tax- exempt advocacy groups: Prohibited from coordinating with candidates, they served primarily as a weapon to try to mow down opponents, rather than a means to communicate a positive vision. And the preponderance of groups working on Romney’s behalf may have overloaded voters.
“There were so many super PACs, it felt like a lot of well- meaning people throwing a variety of ads at the wall to see what would stick,” said Republican admaker FredDavis.
Charlie Spies, treasurer of Restore Our Future, a pro- Romney super PAC, agreed that “the sheer volume of ads in all races certainly meant that it was hard to penetrate with a message.”
But he argued that his group broke through with its ads strafing Obama’s economic record.
“It would be irresponsible to jump to any conclusion that certain super PAC ads weren’t effective based upon the overall result,” Spies said. “In the big picture, the impact of super PACs and outside groups in this cycle was to level the playing field.”
Indeed, pro- Romney groups sponsored half of all broadcast television spots aired on his behalf between April 11 and Oct. 29, helping bring him to near parity with Obama and his allies, according to the Wesleyan Media Project, which analyzed data from the adtracking firm Kantar Media/ CMAG. But the outside groups had to pay a steeper price than the president, who as a candidate can pay a lower rate.
The investment in ads by many of the groups was viewed with skepticism by some conservative donors.
“I’m not a big fan of the high- altitude approach of mega TV ads,” said Foster Friess, a retired mutual fund executive from Wyoming who said he gave about $ 5 million to outside groups this election cycle, including Restore Our Future. In the future, he said, there should be more emphasis on the kind of ontheground organizing that labor unions do.
Despite Tuesday’s outcome, Friess said he believes donors will open their checkbooks again: “My guess is that four years from now, the financial support will not drop off but may be even higher for the outside groups.”
In all, outside groups reported spending $ 1.03 billion on media and other forms of voter outreach as ofWednesday— more than three times the amount they spent in 2008, according to the nonpartisan research group Center for Responsive Politics. That does not include money that tax- exempt groups put into early issue ads and voter contact, activities that could total hundreds of millions more but do not have to be reported.
Even as they mulled their losses, top conservative groups said Tuesday’s results would not slow them down.
“We are not about just one year or one election or one issue,” said Tim Phillips, president of Americans for Prosperity, a nonprofit advocacy group that spent more than $ 190 million in the two- year cycle— a large share on ads pummeling Obama on the debt andhis energy policies. “It’s about building for the long haul, and that’s what we’re committed to doing.”