An article in yesterday’s Los Angeles Times examines the role of so-called 527 committees (named after the section of the Internal Revenue Code that governs their tax-exempt status) in this year’s election. 527 committees are known as “issue advocacy groups” because their ostensible purpose is to advocate on behalf of or in opposition to political issues rather than to advocate the election or defeat of a specific candidate, a distinction which allows 527s to avoid filing campaign disclosure reports with the Federal Election Commission. Probably the two best-known 527 committees are Swift Boat Veterans and POWs for Truth, which spent $22.5 million in 2004 on TV ads and other material opposing John Kerry’s presidential bid; and MoveOn.org, which spent $21.5 million in 2004 on TV ads and other material opposing George W. Bush’s re-election campaign.

According to the Times‘ analysis of federal campaign finance reports, 527 committees have spent upwards of $300 million to influence the outcomes of various races and measures in this election. The main example closest to home is the significant amount of money that’s being spent by 527 committees on behalf of Proposition 90, although unregulated money is also being spent by 527s on behalf (or, more frequently perhaps, in opposition to) of many other ballot measures and statewide and congressional candidates.

The San Francisco Chronicle has an article today about Stephen Bing, the primary backer of Proposition 87. Bing has now given $49.5 million in support of the alternative energy initiative, the largest amount ever donated by a single individual to a campaign in US history.

Total spending on the Yes and No on 87 campaigns has now reached an astronomical $142 million, according to the Los Angeles Times. Most of the No on 87 cash has come from oil companies like Chevron, Aera Energy (a coalition of ExxonMobil and Royal Dutch Shell), and Occidental Oil.

According to an article in today’s Ventura County Star, Team 2006, the independent expenditure committee supporting Tony Strickland’s run for state controller, is also spending $100,000 for TV ad buys for the campaign of his wife, Audra Strickland, who is running for re-election in the 37th Assembly district against Ferial Masry.

According to the article, “The $100,000 spent on behalf of Audra Strickland in the Assembly race nearly matches the entire campaign fund of Strickland’s Democratic opponent.”

Audra Strickland told the newspaper, “I’m just pleased that people are out there helping me.”

The blogosphere is buzzing these final two weeks of the election season not about Schwarzenegger versus Angelides, but about Strickland versus Chiang (in the race for state controller) and McClintock versus Garamendi (in the race for lieutenant governor). A new independent expenditure committee, Team 2006, has been formed by five Native American tribes that operate casinos in Southern California. Four of the tribes have contributed nearly $9 million to Team 2006.
Continue Reading »

The Center for Responsive Politics notes that the 2006 election is on track to be the most expensive in US history. “Candidates, national political parties and outside issue advocacy groups will spend roughly $2.6 billion by the end of 2006 to influence the 472 federal contests around the United States and pad the war chests of incumbents not running this year,” according to the group.

Take a look at the CRP’s list of the top 20 industries contributing dollars to the 2006 election fights.

Forget about California — the Washington Post reports in Friday’s edition that the fight over Proposition 87 may turn out to be the costliest in United States history. The article quotes John Matsusaka, the director of the Initiative and Referendum Institute at the University of Southern California, as saying that the $107 million-plus that’s been spent on the yes and no campaigns thus far is only a little less than half the money ($250 million) spent by both major presidential candidates in the 2004 election.

Meanwhile, the San José Mercury News reports that, according to Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, corporations have shoveled over $255 million into this year’s ballot (mostly to defeat Propositions 86 and 87) — a figure that represents 61% of all expenditures in the election.

Dan Morain of the Los Angeles Times writes today that the 2006 election is proving to be a boon for independent expenditure committees, especially as the campaign cycle draws to a close. Morain reports that four Southern California Native American tribes recently formed an independent expenditure committee funded with $3.1 million to support candidates who favor expansion of Indian casinos. Morain writes, “Political consultants believe that the tribes are about to spend additional sums on behalf of Tony Strickland, the Republican nominee for state controller, and Sen. Tom McClintock (R-Thousand Oaks), who is running for lieutenant governor. Both candidates have voted with the tribes in the past.” Another independent expenditure committee is reportedly being formed to assist the struggling campaign of Chuck Poochigian for attorney general.

Our Hot Topics pages list major contributors to all of the 13 qualified measures on the November ballot, including independent expenditure committees.

The high-profile ballot measures, like Proposition 86 and 87, have roomsful of money to spend on tens of millions of dollars in ad buys dropped by deep-pocketed donors to make sure that the measures’ pros and cons are getting exhaustive exposure to the voting public — or at least the version of pros and cons that ad writers craft.

Other measures are flying under the radar and getting the word out to potential supporters in other ways. One example is Proposition 85, the measure that would require parental notification for minors to take place before an abortion could occur (and would also enact less well-publicized requirements, such as mandating that doctors report how many abortions they perform on minors per year).

According to a Riverside Press-Enterprise article yesterday, polls consistently indicate that a significant majoirty of Californians do not want Roe v. Wade overturned, but they have much less difficulty with laws that make abortions more difficult to get.

Last year, Proposition 73, which was substantially the same measure as Proposition 85, failed at the polls by a margin of 53-47%. The supporters of Proposition 85 argue that they re-introduced the measure this year because the merits of last year’s proposition got swamped by the unpopularity of the governor’s raft of special election measures.

The Press-Enterprise article echoes this view, noting that the political climate is different this time around. A UC Riverside political science professor, Shaun Bowler, is quoted in the article as saying, “This is one of those hot-button issues that should generate lots of turnout among conservative voters.”

Proposition 85 could well pass this year — without more than a fraction of the publicity or advertising that’s flowed into higher-profile proposition campaigns.

According to an October 6 Los Angeles Times article, spending on the ballot measure and candidate campaigns is “hurtling toward the $400-million mark for the year.” Some data points from the article:

• Jerry Brown, the former governor, current mayor of Oakland, and Democratic candidate for attorney general, has outfundraised his Republican opponent, Fresno state senator Chuck Poochigian, by a nearly 2-1 margin ($4.2 million to $2.4 million).

• Schwarzenegger’s campaign spent $9 million on TV ads in the campaign reporting period between July 1 and September 30.

• Attorney General Bill Lockyer, who is running for treasurer, the job currently held by Phil Angelides, has spent $1 million this year, although virtually nobody but political junkies knows who his Republican opponent, Claude Parrish, is.