tag:theconversation.com,2011:/es/topics/campaign-spending-39951/articlesCampaign spending – The Conversation2022-12-20T05:03:40Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1968702022-12-20T05:03:40Z2022-12-20T05:03:40ZThe Morrison government spent a record amount on taxpayer-funded advertising, new data reveal<p>The federal government is a big spender in the advertising world, regularly spending more than major companies such as McDonald’s, Telstra and Coles. New data <a href="https://www.finance.gov.au/publications/reports/campaign-advertising-australian-government-departments-and-agencies-report-2021-22">released on Friday by the Department of Finance</a> shows that in the lead-up to the May 2022 election, the Coalition government’s advertising spend skyrocketed yet again.</p>
<p>The past financial year was the biggest year on record for taxpayer-funded advertising. The previous federal government spent A$339 million on taxpayer-funded advertising campaigns in 2021-22, well above the <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Grattan-Institute-advertising-report.pdf">25-year average</a> of about $200 million a year.</p>
<p>In the first six months of 2022, the previous government was the <a href="https://www.mediaweek.com.au/nielsen-unveils-the-biggest-ad-spenders-for-the-first-half-of-2022/">biggest advertising spender</a> in the country.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Graph showing annual federal government spending on advertising campaigns" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/502056/original/file-20221220-16-yqs7ym.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/502056/original/file-20221220-16-yqs7ym.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/502056/original/file-20221220-16-yqs7ym.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/502056/original/file-20221220-16-yqs7ym.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/502056/original/file-20221220-16-yqs7ym.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/502056/original/file-20221220-16-yqs7ym.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/502056/original/file-20221220-16-yqs7ym.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The Morrison government ran 28 separate advertising campaigns last financial year – the most on record. Many were for legitimate purposes, such as an $89 million campaign encouraging take-up of the COVID-19 vaccine, and a $25 million campaign urging people to fill out the Census.</p>
<p>But sometimes, taxpayer-funded advertising campaigns seek to confer a political advantage. This is often achieved by including party slogans or colours, and/or spruiking government achievements – often in the lead-up to elections.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Chart showing the top 20 most expensive taxpayer-funded campaigns for 2021-22" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/502021/original/file-20221219-22-4nj10j.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/502021/original/file-20221219-22-4nj10j.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/502021/original/file-20221219-22-4nj10j.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/502021/original/file-20221219-22-4nj10j.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/502021/original/file-20221219-22-4nj10j.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/502021/original/file-20221219-22-4nj10j.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/502021/original/file-20221219-22-4nj10j.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Why does government advertising spike before elections?</h2>
<p>Taxpayer-funded advertising typically spikes in election years, and 2022 was no exception.</p>
<p>In the six months leading up to the 2022 election, the Coalition government spent about <a href="https://www.finance.gov.au/publications/reports/advertising">$180 million</a>, compared with about $120 million in the six months leading up to the 2019 election.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Chart showing federal government advertising spend spikes just before federal elections" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/502022/original/file-20221219-18-4nzzzb.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/502022/original/file-20221219-18-4nzzzb.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/502022/original/file-20221219-18-4nzzzb.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/502022/original/file-20221219-18-4nzzzb.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/502022/original/file-20221219-18-4nzzzb.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/502022/original/file-20221219-18-4nzzzb.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/502022/original/file-20221219-18-4nzzzb.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>An otherwise legitimate campaign might be strategically run pre-election to encourage a positive impression of the government. For example, an $18 million federal government campaign on recycling was called out by the then-Labor opposition as “<a href="https://www.joshwilson.org.au/2022/02/15/more-waste-more-rubbish-government-spends-millions-on-greenwashing-again/">ridiculous and self-serving greenwash</a>”.</p>
<p>But usually, pre-election advertising also contains messages that look politically motivated – promoting the government’s policy platform on key election issues.</p>
<p>For example, the $28.5 million Emissions Reduction campaign – the third most expensive campaign of the year – ran from September 2021 to April 2022, and sought to promote the government’s “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/feb/14/coalition-spends-31m-on-ads-spruiking-efforts-to-cut-greenhouse-gas-emissions">good progress</a>” on reducing greenhouse emissions and switching to renewable energy. The campaign clearly used messaging that created a positive image of the government’s performance, and lacked a call to action that might justify it on public interest grounds.</p>
<p><a href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/new-politics-depoliticising-taxpayer-funded-advertising/">Grattan Institute analysis</a> shows that typically, about a quarter of government spending on advertising is politicised in some way, by both sides of politics. Historically, about $50 million on average each year has been spent on campaigns that are politicised.</p>
<p>The former government’s “<a href="https://www.finance.gov.au/sites/default/files/2022-12/Campaign%20Advertising%20by%20Australian%20Government%20Departments%20and%20Agencies%20-%20Report%202021-22.pdf">COVID-19 Economic Recovery Plan</a>” fell into this category, because it blatantly spruiked the government of the day, without requiring any action or behaviour change from citizens.</p>
<p>Officially, the campaign sought “to inform Australians about the government response to the recurring challenges being faced and reassure [us] there was an adaptable and future-focused plan in place for the economy”.</p>
<p>This was criticised by Labor Senator Tim Ayres in early 2022, <a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/treasury-suspends-10m-ad-blitz-promoting-economic-recovery-and-coalitions-job-record-due-to-poll/news-story/5b42f2f756ba253a81bf15c25eb9b933">who asked</a>: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>What possible public purpose is there in ‘Australia’s Economic Plan – we’re taking the next step’? […] What is it asking people to do apart from vote Liberal?</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Why is politicisation of taxpayer-funded advertising harmful?</h2>
<p>Politicisation of taxpayer-funded advertising is wasteful and creates an uneven playing field in elections.</p>
<p>Government advertising budgets are well above the expenditure of individual political parties, even in election years.</p>
<p>We won’t know until February 2023 how much political parties spent in the 2022 federal election. But in the lead-up to the 2019 election, <a href="https://transparency.aec.gov.au/download">the Coalition spent $178 million, Labor $122 million, and Clive Palmer $89 million</a>, with advertising only a portion of their expenses.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-big-money-influenced-the-2019-federal-election-and-what-we-can-do-to-fix-the-system-131141">How big money influenced the 2019 federal election – and what we can do to fix the system</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>How things should change</h2>
<p>The new federal government has announced it will cut taxpayer-funded advertising, although by how much is not yet clear. Labor has promised to tackle <a href="https://www.adnews.com.au/news/the-federal-government-slashes-advertising-budget">advertising</a> as part of its broader “rorts and waste” audit.</p>
<p>That promise to cut wasteful spending will be best tested by whether Labor tightens the rules and oversight for government advertising.</p>
<p>Public money should not be used to spruik government policies. It should be used only on public-interest advertising campaigns that have a clear “need to know” message and a call to action.</p>
<p>An independent panel should be established to check compliance. The panel should have the power to knock back campaigns that aren’t compliant – whether they are politicised, or more generally don’t offer value for money.</p>
<p>And if the rules are broken, then the political party – not the taxpayer – should foot the bill for the entire advertising campaign.</p>
<p>Establishing a proper process is the only way to truly reduce waste and restore public confidence in genuinely important government messages.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>Kate Griffiths and Anika Stobart are coauthors of <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/new-politics-depoliticising-taxpayer-funded-advertising/">New politics: Depoliticising taxpayer-funded advertising</a>, Grattan Institute, 2022.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/196870/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The Grattan Institute began with contributions to its endowment of $15 million from each of the Federal and Victorian Governments, $4 million from BHP Billiton, and $1 million from NAB. In order to safeguard its independence, Grattan Institute’s board controls this endowment. The funds are invested and contribute to funding Grattan Institute's activities. Grattan Institute also receives funding from corporates, foundations, and individuals to support its general activities as disclosed on its website.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kate Griffiths does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Politicisation of taxpayer-funded advertising is wasteful and creates an uneven playing field in elections.Kate Griffiths, Deputy Program Director, Grattan InstituteAnika Stobart, Senior Associate, Grattan InstituteLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1927042022-10-20T13:14:12Z2022-10-20T13:14:12ZCorporate spending in state politics and elections can affect everything from your wallet to your health<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/490190/original/file-20221017-7289-9wr57o.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C4%2C2916%2C2004&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">From Alaska to Alabama, corporations spend money to shape their local business environments, resources and regulations. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/campaign-donations-royalty-free-image/1398882607?phrase=political%20donations&adppopup=true">Douglas Rissing/ iStock / Getty Images Plus</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Political spending by corporations is big business. </p>
<p>As one corporate executive with experience in business-government relations says, “A company that is dependent on government that does not donate to politicians is engaging in corporate malpractice.” </p>
<p>Our research group heard that statement during a series of interviews with industry insiders that we conducted for <a href="https://journals.aom.org/doi/abs/10.5465/amj.2017.1258">a study on corporate political strategy and involvement</a> in U.S. state politics. </p>
<p>In the 2020 election cycle, private interests spent <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/political-action-committees-pacs/2022">US$486 million on campaign contributions</a> to U.S. federal election candidates and over <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying">$7 billion</a> to lobby Congress and federal agencies.</p>
<p>The 2022 cycle could be a record period if recent trends are any indication. At the federal level, <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2020/12/most-expensive-races-of-all-time-senate2020/">nine of the 10 most expensive Senate races to date happened during the 2020 election cycle</a>. Notably, Georgia was home to the <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2021/01/georgia-senate-races-shatter-records/">two most expensive Senate contests of all time in 2020</a>, with candidates and outside groups spending over $800 million on the two races combined.</p>
<p>Data from campaign finance monitor the <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/top-spenders">Center for Responsive Politics</a> shows that those companies most affected by government regulation spend more. The operations of Facebook owner Meta, for example, could be heavily affected by government legislation, whether from laws concerning <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-42096185">net neutrality</a>, <a href="https://gdpr.eu/the-gdpr-meets-its-first-challenge-facebook/">data privacy</a> or <a href="https://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/social-clashes-digital-free-speech">censorship</a>. Meta spent nearly $7.8 million in contributions and $36.4 million in lobbying <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary?toprecipcycle=2020&contribcycle=2020&lobcycle=2020&outspendcycle=2020&id=D000033563&topnumcycle=2020">during the 2020 cycle</a>. </p>
<p>This kind of political spending is also common across state governments. From Alaska to Alabama, <a href="https://www.followthemoney.org/">corporations spend huge sums of money</a> to influence policymaking because they depend on their local business environments, resources and regulations. </p>
<p>Contributions to gubernatorial and state legislative candidates <a href="https://www.followthemoney.org/research/institute-reports/joint-report-reveals-record-donations-in-2020-state-and-federal-races">set records during the 2020 cycle</a>, nearing $1.9 billion. That was up from $1.57 billion during the 2016 cycle and $1.4 billion during the 2012 cycle. Contributions in the 2020 cycle represented a nearly 21% increase from 2016. Both major political parties tend to receive roughly the same level of contributions, though the numbers can vary from year to year.</p>
<p>As the next election approaches, corporate involvement in state politics is vital to understand. </p>
<p>Companies’ attempts to manage state regulations have important effects on their operations directly as well as on state revenues and on the lives of state residents. Corporations can affect <a href="https://academic.oup.com/sf/article-abstract/90/3/947/2235830">the air that you breathe, the water you drink</a> and <a href="https://apnews.com/bd8a878c5fe84ea48ffbcf05b4edba0e">the taxes you pay</a>. </p>
<h2>External forces spark donations</h2>
<p>A <a href="https://journals.aom.org/doi/abs/10.5465/amj.2017.1258">study we conducted</a> with colleagues <a href="https://robins.richmond.edu/faculty/asutton/">Trey Sutton</a> and <a href="https://business.fsu.edu/person/bruce-lamont">Bruce Lamont</a> provides insight into the details of when and why corporations contribute to state gubernatorial and legislative candidates. </p>
<p>We examined political contributions by publicly traded companies in elections for governor and the legislature across the 50 U.S. states. The companies we studied (e.g., ExxonMobil and 3M) all operate in environmentally intensive industries – oil and gas, chemical, energy and manufacturing industries. Specifically, the companies in these industries have industrial manufacturing processes <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2013/06/10/americas-20-worst-corporate-air-polluters/#403cf82d41c6">that create toxic releases</a>. </p>
<p>We also interviewed industry insiders, political affairs consultants and lobbyists to complement our empirical findings. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/343567/original/file-20200623-188882-1tzlhzd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/343567/original/file-20200623-188882-1tzlhzd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=374&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/343567/original/file-20200623-188882-1tzlhzd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=374&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/343567/original/file-20200623-188882-1tzlhzd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=374&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/343567/original/file-20200623-188882-1tzlhzd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=470&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/343567/original/file-20200623-188882-1tzlhzd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=470&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/343567/original/file-20200623-188882-1tzlhzd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=470&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">ExxonMobil is one of many companies that will likely spend a lot of money on upcoming elections.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/anastasia-hinchsliff-fuels-her-suv-at-an-exxon-mobile-gas-news-photo/103157613?adppopup=true">John Gress/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>At the core, companies spend when they are dependent on states, meaning that they have vested interests and operations in a state that are subject to regulation. Regulation creates uncertainty for managers – which they don’t like. Spending helps alleviate the uncertainty by influencing what regulation may be imposed. </p>
<p>Our study went beyond this observation, and had four major insights:</p>
<p><strong>1. Corporations spend when they are worried about negative media coverage prompting what they perceive to be potentially harmful regulations.</strong></p>
<p>As one executive told us, “We spend a lot of time tracking media and local advocacy groups. We track [them] on a daily basis, and I get a report each week.” </p>
<p>Media coverage can drive public perceptions of corporations and influence politicians’ views. In particular, media coverage can amplify misdeeds of companies across states, which worries managers who do not want to see new regulations. In line with this, we found that the companies spent 70% more in states they operated in when national media coverage was more negative rather than less negative. </p>
<p>We found that this effect was exclusive to national media coverage as opposed to local media coverage. Specifically, when local media coverage was more negative, it did not appear to affect political spending. </p>
<p><strong>2. Corporations spend when there are powerful social movement organizations – for example, environmental protection groups – within a state.</strong></p>
<p>“Public relations firms are routinely engaged to monitor activists and the media, because if you don’t watch them, they can create regulatory change. You have to get ahead of it,” an executive said. </p>
<p>Social movement organizations (e.g., Sierra Club and the Rainforest Action Network) help <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/3312913?casa_token=5XA3RUoopBYAAAAA%3Agc06Z6cwRA6ODbgPUOkHwk2Ea7XB43KocZhFtMZjaTyH0UlKbOim5uAZS9QniQ1k9hXjtwGYyCEbovm__npFAuKOb467j57cqa12omJC4o1tzHJrUl--&seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents">shape public opinion on important issues, pursue institutional change and can prompt legal reform</a> as well, which is a concern to corporations. Our research indicated that in states where they had operations, companies spent 102% more when facing greater opposition from social movement organizations than they would have on average. </p>
<p><strong>3. Corporations spend to gain a seat at the legislative table to communicate their interests.</strong></p>
<p>A political affairs consultant and lobbyist said, “Regulations are a negotiation, there is not a logic, no rule of law, lobbyists come in here…” In essence, legislators rely on policy experts and analysts, among others, when crafting new legislation, but often, solutions can be unclear with competing demands and interests. </p>
<p>Our interviewees shared with us that companies spread their contributions around to those politicians who they believe will listen to their causes and concerns – regardless of party. </p>
<p>They described themselves as wanting their voices heard on particular issues and as important players in the states in which they operate due to the employment and tax base they bring to states. </p>
<p>Boeing, for example, was the <a href="https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2021/10/06/amazon-microsoft-boeing-largest-employers.html">largest private employer in Washington state for decades</a> and has been able to <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-incentives/boeing-lobby-group-team-up-to-defend-8-7-billion-in-state-tax-breaks-idUSKBN14U23V">secure tax breaks</a> as a result. This is despite <a href="https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/environment/boeing-discharge-to-duwamish-violates-pcb-standards/">documented environmental problems that Boeing’s operations have had in the state.</a> </p>
<p><strong>4. Corporations spend because they see it as <a href="https://www.businessroundtable.org/about-us">consistent with their responsibility to stakeholders</a>.</strong> </p>
<p>“Companies mostly want certainty, they want to know the bottom line, and engagement can create opportunities,” said one political affairs consultant. </p>
<p>Corporations have a legal and ethical responsibility to their stakeholders. Company leaders often believe they are upholding their responsibilities to shareholders, employees, communities, customers and suppliers by participating in the political process. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/343565/original/file-20200623-188936-v56a1n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/343565/original/file-20200623-188936-v56a1n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/343565/original/file-20200623-188936-v56a1n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/343565/original/file-20200623-188936-v56a1n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/343565/original/file-20200623-188936-v56a1n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/343565/original/file-20200623-188936-v56a1n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/343565/original/file-20200623-188936-v56a1n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">California lawmakers often set more stringent environmental policies than most other states.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/state-capitol-building-sacramento-california-news-photo/661870070?adppopup=true">Education Images/Universal Images Group via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>What are the stakes?</h2>
<p>There can be huge repercussions for companies in state regulation. As one political affairs consultant told us, “[Regulation] is the pot at the end of the rainbow that could create endless possibilities of profit. It’s the only thing that stands between them and unending profits …” </p>
<p>Ride hailing service Uber, for example, mounted <a href="https://www.theregreview.org/2018/06/28/schriever-uber-lyft-lobby-deregulation-preemption/">protracted political campaigns</a> aimed at state legislatures and local governments to protect the company’s interests. One result: The ride hailing service has been able to get independent contractor status for their drivers in many states, which means the company does not have to provide unemployment insurance, workers’ compensation and other benefits. </p>
<p>Passage of regulations in large states like California, for example, can have nearly as much impact as a national regulation, making their passage far more significant for companies working nationally. </p>
<p>Since California sets more <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-california-gets-to-write-its-own-auto-emissions-standards-5-questions-answered-94379">stringent emissions standards</a> for vehicles than most other states, manufacturers designing cars for the U.S. market must make sure their vehicles can pass these standards. In this way, California and other states <a href="https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-06-22/nevada-will-adopt-californias-car-pollution-standards">following its lead</a> pose a larger regulatory hurdle for auto manufacturers. </p>
<h2>Where does this leave us?</h2>
<p>Corporate involvement in state politics is an important phenomenon. Corporations provide needed products and services, and also bring jobs and increased investment to states, which can strengthen communities and state economies. Their operations also can bring health and environmental problems for state residents.</p>
<p><a href="https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/where-are-georgias-senate-candidates-getting-all-that-cash-from/">As the 2020 Georgia U.S. Senate races suggest</a>, campaign donations for candidates for federal office increasingly come from outside the state. <a href="https://www.followthemoney.org/research/institute-reports/joint-report-reveals-record-donations-in-2020-state-and-federal-races">While this pattern does not pervade state elections yet</a>, it raises questions about politicians’ responsiveness to the issues most relevant to their local constituencies.</p>
<p>Given the changed business landscape – <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-much-covid-19-cost-those-businesses-that-stayed-open-11592910575">and increased operating costs</a> – caused by the coronavirus pandemic, we expect that businesses across the country will continue to be interested in influencing policies ranging from workplace safety to local and state tax breaks. This interest will likely translate into significant spending in the upcoming election, to both major parties and their candidates.</p>
<p>And that political spending will affect everything from your wallet to your health.</p>
<p><em>This is an updated version of a <a href="https://theconversation.com/money-talks-big-business-political-strategy-and-corporate-involvement-in-us-state-politics-140686">story originally published on June 29, 2020</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/192704/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Businesses can spend huge amounts of money to influence Congress. But sizable lobbyist and campaign donations also go to state campaigns and lawmakers to influence policymaking.Richard A. Devine, Assistant Professor of Management, DePaul UniversityR. Michael Holmes Jr., Jim Moran Professor of Strategic Management, Florida State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1406862020-06-29T12:11:43Z2020-06-29T12:11:43ZMoney talks: Big business, political strategy and corporate involvement in US state politics<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/343600/original/file-20200623-188931-5lpuzu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Protesters rally to have Colorado's then-incoming governor put an up-to-nine-month moratorium on oil and gas development.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/from-left-to-right-sandy-tolland-in-hat-miranda-glasbergen-news-photo/1076896552?adppopup=true">Helen H. Richardson/The Denver Post via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Political spending by corporations is big business. </p>
<p>As one corporate executive with experience in business-government relations says, “A company that is dependent on government that does not donate to politicians is engaging in corporate malpractice.” </p>
<p>Our research group heard that statement during a series of interviews with industry insiders that we conducted for <a href="https://journals.aom.org/doi/abs/10.5465/amj.2017.1258">a study on corporate political strategy and involvement</a> in U.S state politics. </p>
<p>In the 2018 election cycle, for example, private interests <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/">spent US$500 million</a> on campaign contributions to U.S. federal election candidates and <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying">nearly $7 billion</a> to lobby federal officials. </p>
<p>As shown by campaign finance monitor the <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/top-spenders">Center for Responsive Politics</a>, those firms most affected by government regulation spend more. The operations of Facebook, for example, could be heavily affected by government legislation, whether from laws concerning <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-42096185">net neutrality</a>, <a href="https://gdpr.eu/the-gdpr-meets-its-first-challenge-facebook/">data privacy</a>, <a href="https://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/social-clashes-digital-free-speech">censorship</a> or the company’s classification as a <a href="https://medium.com/swlh/platform-or-publisher-f20f72f832b6">platform or publisher</a>. Facebook spent over $2 million in contributions and $24 million in lobbying <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs//summary?topnumcycle=2018&toprecipcycle=All%20cycles&contribcycle=All%20cycles&lobcycle=All%20cycles&outspendcycle=All%20cycles&id=D000033563">during the same period</a>.</p>
<p>This kind of political spending is also common across state governments. From Alaska to Alabama, <a href="https://www.followthemoney.org/">firms spend huge sums of money</a> to influence policymaking because they depend on their local business environments, resources and regulations. </p>
<p>For example, after <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/2008/08-205">Citizens United</a>, a landmark 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision that freed corporations (as well as nonprofits, unions and other associations) to spend unlimited amounts in elections, political spending skyrocketed. <a href="https://www.followthemoney.org/research/institute-reports/10-years-after-citizens-united-state-races-transformed-by-explosive-growth-in-independent-spending">An examination of 16 states that provided pre-Citizens United data</a> revealed that the 2018 election cycle saw over $540 million in independent spending across their state elections. This is compared with the 2007-2008 election cycle prior to the Citizens United ruling, in which independent spending in these states amounted to $106 million. That’s an over five-fold increase.</p>
<p>As the next election approaches, corporate involvement in state politics is vital to understand. Companies’ attempts to manage state regulations have important effects on their operations directly as well as on state revenues and on the lives of state residents. Corporations can affect <a href="https://academic.oup.com/sf/article-abstract/90/3/947/2235830">the air that you breathe, the water that you drink</a> and <a href="https://apnews.com/bd8a878c5fe84ea48ffbcf05b4edba0e">the taxes that you pay</a>. </p>
<h2>External forces spark donations</h2>
<p>A <a href="https://journals.aom.org/doi/abs/10.5465/amj.2017.1258">new study we conducted</a> with colleagues <a href="https://robins.richmond.edu/faculty-staff/asutton/">Trey Sutton</a> and <a href="https://business.fsu.edu/person/bruce-lamont">Bruce Lamont</a> provides insight into the details of when and why corporations contribute to state gubernatorial and legislative candidates. </p>
<p>We examined political contributions by publicly traded firms in elections for governor and the legislature across the 50 U.S. states. The companies we studied (e.g., ExxonMobil and 3M) all operate in environmentally intensive industries – oil and gas, chemical, energy and manufacturing industries. Specifically, the companies in these industries have industrial manufacturing processes <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2013/06/10/americas-20-worst-corporate-air-polluters/#403cf82d41c6">that create toxic releases</a>. We also interviewed industry insiders, political affairs consultants and lobbyists to complement our empirical findings. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/343567/original/file-20200623-188882-1tzlhzd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/343567/original/file-20200623-188882-1tzlhzd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=374&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/343567/original/file-20200623-188882-1tzlhzd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=374&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/343567/original/file-20200623-188882-1tzlhzd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=374&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/343567/original/file-20200623-188882-1tzlhzd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=470&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/343567/original/file-20200623-188882-1tzlhzd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=470&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/343567/original/file-20200623-188882-1tzlhzd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=470&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">ExxonMobil is one of many companies that will likely spend a lot of money on upcoming elections.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/anastasia-hinchsliff-fuels-her-suv-at-an-exxon-mobile-gas-news-photo/103157613?adppopup=true">John Gress/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>At the core, firms spend when they are dependent on states, meaning that they have vested interests and operations in a state that are subject to regulation. Regulation creates uncertainty for managers – which they don’t like. Spending helps alleviate the uncertainty by influencing what regulation may be imposed. </p>
<p>Our study went beyond this observation, and had four major insights:</p>
<p><strong>1. Companies spend when they are worried about negative media coverage prompting what they perceive to be potentially harmful regulations.</strong></p>
<p>As one executive told us, “We spend a lot of time tracking media and local advocacy groups. We track [them] on a daily basis, and I get a report each week.” </p>
<p>Media coverage can drive public perceptions of corporations and influence politicians’ views. In particular, media coverage can amplify misdeeds of companies across states, which worries managers who do not want to see new regulations. In line with this, we found that the firms spent 70% more in states they operated in when national media coverage of their companies was more negative rather than less negative. </p>
<p>We found that this effect was exclusive to national media coverage as opposed to local media coverage. Specifically, when local media coverage was more negative, it did not appear to affect political spending. </p>
<p><strong>2. Firms spend when there are powerful social movement organizations – for example, environmental protection groups – within a state.</strong></p>
<p>“Public relations firms are routinely engaged to monitor activists and the media, because if you don’t watch them, they can create regulatory change. You have to get ahead of it,” an executive said. </p>
<p>Social movement organizations (e.g., Sierra Club and the Rainforest Action Network) help <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/3312913?casa_token=5XA3RUoopBYAAAAA%3Agc06Z6cwRA6ODbgPUOkHwk2Ea7XB43KocZhFtMZjaTyH0UlKbOim5uAZS9QniQ1k9hXjtwGYyCEbovm__npFAuKOb467j57cqa12omJC4o1tzHJrUl--&seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents">shape public opinion on important issues, pursue institutional change and can prompt legal reform</a> as well, which is a concern to corporations. Our research indicated that in states where they had operations, firms spent 102% more when facing greater opposition from social movement organizations than they would have on average. </p>
<p><strong>3. Firms spend to gain a seat at the ‘legislative table’ to communicate their interests.</strong></p>
<p>A political affairs consultant and lobbyist said, “Regulations are a negotiation, there is not a logic, no rule of law, lobbyists come in here…” In essence, legislators rely on policy experts and analysts, among others, when crafting new legislation, but often, solutions can be unclear with competing demands and interests. </p>
<p>Our interviewees shared with us that companies spread their contributions around to those politicians who they believe will listen to their causes and concerns – regardless of party. </p>
<p>They described themselves as wanting their voices heard on particular issues and as important players in the states in which they operate due to the employment and tax base they bring to states. </p>
<p>Boeing, for example, is the <a href="https://www.seattletimes.com/business/amazon/amazon-tops-53500-local-employees-as-it-begins-nationwide-hiring-push/">largest private employer in the state</a> of Washington and has been able to <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-incentives/boeing-lobby-group-team-up-to-defend-8-7-billion-in-state-tax-breaks-idUSKBN14U23V">secure tax breaks</a> as a result. This is despite <a href="https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/environment/boeing-discharge-to-duwamish-violates-pcb-standards/">documented environmental problems that Boeing’s operations have had in the state.</a> </p>
<p><strong>4. Firms spend because they see it as <a href="https://www.businessroundtable.org/about-us">consistent with their responsibility to stakeholders</a>.</strong> </p>
<p>“Companies mostly want certainty, they want to know the bottom line, and engagement can create opportunities,” said one political affairs consultant. </p>
<p>Corporations have a legal and ethical responsibility to their stakeholders. Company leaders often believe they are upholding their responsibilities to shareholders, employees, communities, customers and suppliers by participating in the political process. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/343565/original/file-20200623-188936-v56a1n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/343565/original/file-20200623-188936-v56a1n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/343565/original/file-20200623-188936-v56a1n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/343565/original/file-20200623-188936-v56a1n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/343565/original/file-20200623-188936-v56a1n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/343565/original/file-20200623-188936-v56a1n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/343565/original/file-20200623-188936-v56a1n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">California often sets more stringent environmental policies than most other states.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/state-capitol-building-sacramento-california-news-photo/661870070?adppopup=true">Education Images/Universal Images Group via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>What are the stakes?</h2>
<p>There can be huge repercussions for companies in state regulation. As one political affairs consultant told us, “[Regulation] is the pot at the end of the rainbow that could create endless possibilities of profit, it’s the only thing that stands between them and unending profits…” </p>
<p>Ride hailing service Uber, for example, has mounted <a href="https://www.theregreview.org/2018/06/28/schriever-uber-lyft-lobby-deregulation-preemption/">protracted political campaigns</a> aimed at state legislatures and local governments to protect the company’s interests. The result, among others: The ride hailing service has been able to get independent contractor status for their drivers in many states, which means the company does not have to provide unemployment insurance, workers’ compensation and other benefits. </p>
<p>Passage of regulations in large states like California, for example, can have nearly as much impact as a national regulation – making their passage far more significant for companies working nationally. </p>
<p>For example, since California sets more <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-california-gets-to-write-its-own-auto-emissions-standards-5-questions-answered-94379">stringent emissions standards</a> for vehicles than most other states, manufacturers designing cars for the U.S. market must make sure their vehicles can pass these standards. In this way, California and other states <a href="https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-06-22/nevada-will-adopt-californias-car-pollution-standards">following its lead</a> pose a larger regulatory hurdle for auto manufacturers. </p>
<h2>Where does this leave us?</h2>
<p>Taken together, corporate involvement in state politics is an important phenomenon. In addition to providing needed products and services, corporations bring jobs and increased investment to states, which can strengthen communities and state economies. Their operations also can bring health and environmental problems for state residents, however.</p>
<p>Given the changed business landscape – <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-much-covid-19-cost-those-businesses-that-stayed-open-11592910575">and increased operating costs</a> – caused by the coronavirus pandemic, we expect that businesses across the country will continue to be interested in influencing policies ranging from workplace safety to local and state tax breaks. This interest will likely translate into significant spending in the upcoming election, to both major parties and their candidates.</p>
<p>And that political spending will affect everything from your wallet to your health.</p>
<p>[<em>Insight, in your inbox each day.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=insight">You can get it with The Conversation’s email newsletter</a>.]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/140686/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Holmes is affiliated with both Florida State University and the University of Johannesburg. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Richard A. Devine does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Millions of dollars are spent every election by corporations that want to influence state regulations and policies, and that’s likely to continue in the upcoming election.Richard A. Devine, American UniversityR. Michael Holmes Jr., Jim Moran Associate Professor of Strategic Management, Florida State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1172102019-05-20T14:03:21Z2019-05-20T14:03:21ZWhat we know about how political parties use Facebook advertising – and what we don’t<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/275289/original/file-20190519-69169-t3vwrt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Over the past five years, Facebook has exploded as a site for political advertising and election campaigning. Donald Trump, Jeremy Corbyn and Angela Merkel have all used it to promote their ideas. Yet despite the increasing prominence of Facebook, we currently know very little about how much political parties actually spend on the platform.</p>
<p>In a <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-923X.12687">recent paper</a> published in Political Quarterly, we looked in detail at the use of Facebook in election campaigns, using data from the UK. We found that parties are spending big on the platform but there are serious gaps in information about where that money is going. There are also questions about the way that third parties are using Facebook and the extent to which governments are giving up control to these companies to oversee the way in which money is being spent. </p>
<h2>What do we know about spending on Facebook?</h2>
<p>As a country renowned for its electoral regulation and oversight, the UK provides more information than most about election spending. However, there is remarkably little data about Facebook. While parties are required to declare their election spending, they are not yet required to report exactly how much of it was spent on digital advertising as a separate category. In our paper we dug around in the <a href="http://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/?currentPage=0&rows=10&sort=AcceptedDate&order=desc&tab=1&et=pp&et=ppm&et=tp&et=perpar&et=rd&isIrishSourceYes=true&isIrishSourceNo=true&prePoll=false&postPoll=true&register=gb&register=ni&register=none&optCols=Register&optCols=CampaigningName&optCols=AccountingUnitsAsCentralParty&optCols=IsSponsorship&optCols=IsIrishSource&optCols=RegulatedDoneeType&optCols=CompanyRegistrationNumber&optCols=Postcode&optCols=NatureOfDonation&optCols=PurposeOfVisit&optCols=DonationAction&optCols=ReportedDate&optCols=IsReportedPrePoll&optCols=ReportingPeriodName&optCols=IsBequest&optCols=IsAggregation">Electoral Commission</a> database to try and throw further light on the way parties are using online platforms. </p>
<p>Despite the fact that political parties don’t have to provide a detailed breakdown of exactly how they spend their money, by law they are required to report spending in broad categories to the Electoral Commission. From a 2018 <a href="https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-subject/political-parties-campaigning-and-donations/digital-campaigning">Electoral Commission report</a> we know that there has been a significant rise in spending on digital advertising – even if the spending that has been reported is not the full amount. In 2014, only £30,000 (1.7% of the overall advertising budget) was spent on online advertising, yet by 2017 this figure had risen to £4.3m (42.8%). </p>
<p><strong>Spending on advertising and digital advertising</strong></p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/274958/original/file-20190516-69204-sw3964.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/274958/original/file-20190516-69204-sw3964.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/274958/original/file-20190516-69204-sw3964.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=319&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/274958/original/file-20190516-69204-sw3964.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=319&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/274958/original/file-20190516-69204-sw3964.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=319&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/274958/original/file-20190516-69204-sw3964.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/274958/original/file-20190516-69204-sw3964.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/274958/original/file-20190516-69204-sw3964.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">CAPTION CAPTION CAPTION.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Party spending returns <a href="http://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/Search/Spending?currentPage=1&rows=20&query=Facebook&sort=TotalExpenditure&order=desc&tab=1&et=pp&includeOutsideSection75=true&evt=ukparliament&ev=3568&optCols=ExpenseCategoryName&optCols=AmountInEngland&optCols=AmountInScotland&optCols=AmountInWales&optCols=AmountInNorthernIreland&optCols=DatePaid">also show</a> that just over £3.16m was spent on Facebook advertising by all UK parties at the 2017 general election. That compares to just over £1m on Google, £54,000 on Twitter, just under £25,000 on Amazon and just £239,000 on “traditional” advertising in national and regional media outlets.</p>
<p>When political parties or campaigns spend money on Facebook they can target adverts or videos at specific sections of the public. This might be an ad from Labour suggesting that it’s the only party that can <a href="https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/?active_status=all&ad_type=political_and_issue_ads&country=GB&q=The%20Labour%20Party&view_all_page_id=25749647410">“stop Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party”</a> or the Conservatives arguing that Labour <a href="https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/?active_status=all&ad_type=political_and_issue_ads&country=GB&q=Conservatives&view_all_page_id=8807334278">“won’t deliver Brexit”</a>. These adverts will then be set to appear primarily in certain timelines – such as those of users aged between 35 and 44 and/or living in England. </p>
<h2>The full picture?</h2>
<p>What this data does not reveal, however, is precisely how Facebook campaign budgets are spent. Many of us want to know, for example, if parties are paying for micro-targeting – the practice of using data to develop personalised messages for voters. But the available data does not reveal what kind of adverts parties are paying for, or how widely these are seen. It’s also hard to work out how much money is being spent on Facebook via marketing and research companies, rather than directly from a party to Facebook. This is also true for offline campaigning, suggesting this is a wider issue around advertising spending. </p>
<p>The data tells us, for example, that the Conservative Party paid consultants the Messina Group <a href="http://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/Search/Spending?currentPage=1&rows=20&query=Messina&sort=TotalExpenditure&order=desc&tab=1&et=pp&includeOutsideSection75=true&evt=ukparliament&ev=3568&optCols=ExpenseCategoryName&optCols=AmountInEngland&optCols=AmountInScotland&optCols=AmountInWales&optCols=AmountInNorthernIreland&optCols=DatePaid">just over half a million pounds</a> for market research, advertising and transport during its 2017 general election campaign. We also know that Messina spent money on Facebook. But we don’t know what proportion of the money that went to Messina was spent on Facebook. We therefore can’t tell how much money in total the Conservatives spent on the platform.</p>
<p>In response to pressure, Facebook has introduced some new transparency measures to help to bridge the gap. However, outside an election period, official regulation around disclosure is severely limited. We know, for example, that between October 2018 and April 2019 People’s Vote UK, the campaign to hold a second Brexit referendum, spent £433,384 advertising on Facebook. Pro-Brexit group Britain’s Future spent £422,746 and anti-Brexit group Best for Britain spent £317,463. That’s over £1.1m spent on Brexit-related advertising on Facebook. Yet we know <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/apr/22/facebook-ads-by-lynton-crosbys-firm-part-of-push-for-hard-brexit">little</a> about who is backing these organisations, and whether they have any links to official party campaigns.</p>
<h2>Facebook is a marketplace</h2>
<p>There’s another important factor at play when we think about regulating Facebook spending. In the offline world, it is easy to interpret electoral spending figures because the items declared tend to have a fixed cost. If a party spends £10,000 on leaflets, it will get the same number of leaflets as any other party would. </p>
<p>However, £10,000 spent on Facebook adverts by two parties can result in very different campaigns. This is because as we show Facebook operates on auction principles. Adverts do not have a fixed cost but vary according to which audience an advertiser wants to reach, and the nature of the content produced (with more engaging content being cheaper).</p>
<p>So advertisements to a target audience in a marginal constituency will be much more expensive than a general message in a safe seat. Content that gets watched and shared by people becomes cheaper, whereas parties with less engaging material see the price increase. These principles make it hard to work out precisely what a declared spending figure bought the party in terms of content. It also creates an uneven playing field for parties, effectively pricing some out of using this tool in the way they want. </p>
<p>Official statistics that simply show summary spend therefore offer little insight into how Facebook is really being used by political parties.</p>
<p>Understanding such limitations is vital in order to think about whether and how existing reporting requirements need to change. It won’t simply be enough to apply existing spending principles to the online realm. A lot of what we do know is a <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-45866129">result of political pressure</a> on Facebook to increase transparency around the way political actors use the platform. However, we should all consider the extent to which these platforms should take the lead in matters which strike at the heart of the way democracy works. Or whether – to borrow a phrase – governments and regulators ought to take back control.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/117210/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Katharine Dommett has received funding from the ESRC and British Academy</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sam Power has received funding from the ESRC and the British Academy. </span></em></p>Overall spending is reported but important details are missing.Katharine Dommett, Lecturer in the Public Understanding of Politics, University of SheffieldSam Power, Lecturer in Politics, University of ExeterLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1089732018-12-19T16:01:09Z2018-12-19T16:01:09ZYour deeply held beliefs may just be wrong – 5 essential reads<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/251370/original/file-20181218-27749-1gz2sla.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Maybe it's time to reconsider those long-held ideas?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/senior-confused-man-shrugging-his-shoulders-629472239">Shutterstock/pathdoc</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>Editor’s note: As we come to the end of the year, Conversation editors take a look back at the stories that - for them - exemplified 2018.</em></p>
<p>Our job at The Conversation is to work with scholars to publish analysis that helps readers make sense of the world. And if we demolish a few popularly held – but erroneous or misplaced – ideas and assumptions in the process, that makes me especially happy.</p>
<p>Hence my list, here, of stories from 2018 that use facts to interrogate popular wisdom – and the ideas they proved wrong:</p>
<h2>1. Women can’t possibly vote for Republicans</h2>
<p>In an era when leading Republican political figures – from the president to a Supreme Court nominee – are accused of sexual assault, can women “both be Republican and insist upon women’s rights,” ask Rochester Institute of Technology scholars <a href="https://www.rit.edu/cla/socanthro/christine-kray">Christine A. Kray</a>, <a href="https://www.rit.edu/cla/communication/faculty-staff/hinda-mandell">Hinda Mandell</a> and <a href="https://www.rit.edu/cla/history/faculty/tamar-w-carroll">Tamar Carroll</a>. </p>
<p>Yes, the scholars write. “<a href="https://theconversation.com/republican-women-are-just-fine-thank-you-with-being-republican-104762">Republicanism encompasses different visions of womanhood that allow women to feel that they can be Republican and also strong women</a>.”</p>
<h2>2. Kavanaugh will yank the Supreme Court far to the right</h2>
<p>Brett Kavanaugh’s appointment to the Supreme Court was widely predicted to plunge the court – and American law with it – into a new conservative era. But, writes University of Oregon law professor <a href="https://law.uoregon.edu/explore/ofer-raban">Ofer Raban</a>, “<a href="https://theconversation.com/kavanaughs-impact-on-the-supreme-court-and-the-country-may-not-be-as-profound-as-predicted-106304">these prognoses fail to heed some fundamental distinctions among the decisions of the Supreme Court</a>, and may create a mistaken impression of the court’s power and the inevitable trajectory of American law.” </p>
<p>Simply put, Raban wrote, “Supreme Court rulings are often not the last word on a matter.”</p>
<h2>3. Campaign spending is ruining democracy in the US</h2>
<p>Seventy percent of Americans believe there’s too much money in politics and that spending in elections should be limited. That includes both Democrats and Republicans, according to a recent Pew survey.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/251562/original/file-20181219-45419-1muzzry.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/251562/original/file-20181219-45419-1muzzry.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/251562/original/file-20181219-45419-1muzzry.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=329&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/251562/original/file-20181219-45419-1muzzry.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=329&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/251562/original/file-20181219-45419-1muzzry.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=329&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/251562/original/file-20181219-45419-1muzzry.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=414&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/251562/original/file-20181219-45419-1muzzry.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=414&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/251562/original/file-20181219-45419-1muzzry.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=414&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Campaign spending isn’t the problem.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/download/confirm/717654034?src=olbTDy8fqcDJY_e_6q3V4Q-1-18&size=huge_jpg">Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But campaign spending plays an important role in democracy, helping get candidates’ messages out and educating the public. Columbia Law School scholar <a href="https://www.law.columbia.edu/faculty/richard-briffault">Richard Briffault</a> writes that “<a href="https://theconversation.com/campaign-spending-isnt-the-problem-where-the-money-comes-from-is-104093">the volume of campaign spending is not the main problem with our campaign finance system.</a> The real challenge for our democracy is where so much of this money comes from.” </p>
<p>“The private dollars that drive the system come from a tiny fraction of our society,” writes Briffault, from a donor class that is not “representative of the broader community whose interests are all at stake in an election.”</p>
<h2>4. Trump is another Hitler</h2>
<p>Scholar <a href="https://clasprofiles.wayne.edu/profile/at3369">Sylvia Taschka</a> of Wayne State tackled the countless references to President Donald Trump as this era’s Hitler. </p>
<p>Taschka acknowledges that some historians have made legitimate comparisons of the “few striking similarities between the rise of fascism in Germany then and the current political climate in the United States.” </p>
<p>But, such comparisons are false equivalencies that “<a href="https://theconversation.com/trump-hitler-comparisons-too-easy-and-ignore-the-murderous-history-92394">not only risk trivializing Hitler and the horrors he unleashed</a>,” she writes, but “also prevent people from engaging with the actual issues at hand.”</p>
<h2>5. Gun owners are crazy people</h2>
<p>On “an ordinary day” in 2011, writes criminal justice scholar <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/connie-hassett-walker-447646">Connie Hassett-Walker</a>, she found her husband watching a firearms video. She sat down with him, and that moment was the beginning of five years of research into videos made by gun owners that culminated in a book. </p>
<p>“For all the noise around gun control versus gun rights, there was a story that was missed by non-gun owners like me: how much these guns mean to those who own them,” writes Hassett-Walker.</p>
<p>Americans live in a time of political polarization on a variety of social issues, she writes. “<a href="https://theconversation.com/want-to-understand-gun-owners-watch-their-videos-94694">Both gun control and gun rights supporters would benefit from understanding how those with opposing political and social views see their identity and their culture</a>.”</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/108973/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
Popular wisdom may be popular, but sometimes it’s downright wrong. Five stories from The Conversation’s 2018 politics coverage interrogate popular wisdom – and find it lacking.Naomi Schalit, Senior Editor, Politics + Democracy, The Conversation USLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1040932018-11-02T10:53:31Z2018-11-02T10:53:31ZCampaign spending isn’t the problem – where the money comes from is<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/243339/original/file-20181031-122180-q6vr40.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Lots of money is spent on campaigns. But is that a problem?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/download/confirm/37813696?size=huge_jpg">Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The tide of campaign money seems to be running high and threatening to swamp our democracy.</p>
<p>For the first time, the cost of congressional elections is <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2018/10/cost-of-2018-election/">likely to surpass US$5 billion</a>. </p>
<p>Certainly, $5 billion sounds like a lot to spend on a midterm election. But consider the stakes – our $4.4 trillion federal budget, our $20 trillion gross domestic product and a host of national policies, from immigration to health care to trade to the environment, may all be affected by the election’s outcome. </p>
<p>And although $5 billion is a record amount, the five top advertisers in the U.S. – Comcast, Procter & Gamble, AT&T, Amazon and GM – together spent $20 billion on advertising last year – or <a href="http://www.statista.com/statistics/275446/ad-spending-of-leading-advertisers-on-the-us">four times the money spent on campaign communications</a>. </p>
<p>I’m a scholar who studies, among other subjects, <a href="https://www.law.columbia.edu/faculty/richard-briffault">campaign finance regulation</a>. This surge in campaign spending is striking, but I believe the volume of campaign spending is not the main problem with our campaign finance system. </p>
<p>The real challenge for our democracy is where so much of this money comes from.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/243561/original/file-20181101-83661-wg9uaq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/243561/original/file-20181101-83661-wg9uaq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/243561/original/file-20181101-83661-wg9uaq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=493&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/243561/original/file-20181101-83661-wg9uaq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=493&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/243561/original/file-20181101-83661-wg9uaq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=493&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/243561/original/file-20181101-83661-wg9uaq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=620&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/243561/original/file-20181101-83661-wg9uaq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=620&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/243561/original/file-20181101-83661-wg9uaq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=620&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Demonstrators in Lacey, Washington, in 2016 wanted money out of politics.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Campaign-2016-Why-It-Matters-Money-In-Politics/25f95e39fb1446a299105b879ace623d/11/0">AP/Ted S. Warren</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The one-thousandth of 1 percent</h2>
<p>Our federal election campaigns are <a href="https://transition.fec.gov/pages/brochures/citizens.shtml#ie">entirely funded by private money</a>. The minimal public funding program for presidential elections established in 1974 has collapsed; no major candidate took public funds in either of the <a href="https://shorensteincenter.org/can-taxpayer-money-save-presidential-campaigns/">last two presidential elections.</a> A public funding program for congressional races never existed.</p>
<p>And the private dollars that drive the system come from a tiny fraction of our society. </p>
<p>Federal law requires the reporting of the identities of only those <a href="https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/keeping-records/records-receipts/">donors who give at least $200</a>. </p>
<p>Barely one-half of 1 percent of the adult population has given $200 or more in connection with this year’s federal elections. Yet collectively they have accounted for more than 66 percent of campaign funds, or <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/donordemographics.php">more than $3.4 billion</a>.</p>
<p>More strikingly, a little more than 37,000 people – or about one-thousandth of one percent of the adult population – have so far given $10,000 or more each, aggregating to nearly $1.9 billion, or <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/donordemographics.php">38 percent of the total</a>. </p>
<p><iframe id="OV40Y" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/OV40Y/5/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>In discussions about inequality in the United States, there is a lot of talk about the 1 percent, but in campaign finance it is the 0.0001 percent who matter. And it is the less than one-thousandth of 1 percent – the 2,210 people, who so far have collectively <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/donordemographics.php">given $1.1 billion, or nearly one-quarter of the total</a> – who matter even more. </p>
<p>These numbers reflect only publicly disclosed contributions. With the rise of “<a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/dark-money">dark money groups</a>” that spend to influence election outcomes but – because they claim to be primarily non-electoral – do not have to disclose their donors, the fraction of campaign money provided by <a href="https://www.issueone.org/dark-money/">elite donors is probably even larger</a>.</p>
<p>Nor is the donor class representative of the broader community whose interests are all at stake in an election. </p>
<p>Donors are older, whiter and wealthier than America as a whole. They hail disproportionately from certain places: So far this year, more money has come from the District of Columbia than from 28 states put together. And certain industries – <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/donodemorgraphics.php">finance, real estate, law, health care, oil and gas</a> – are particularly big givers. </p>
<p>According to media reports – there is no formal tracking of these donors – this year has witnessed a <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/16/us/politics/campaign-finance-small-donors.html">striking increase in the number and importance of small donors</a>. But big donors continue to be <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/22/politics/wealthy-republican-donors-fuel-cash-edge/index.html">pivotal to the campaign finance system</a>. And the financing
role of a small number of very wealthy individuals inevitably distorts our political process. </p>
<h2>Impact on democracy</h2>
<p>As the saying goes, he who pays the piper calls the tune. With campaign donors and recipients, this is less a matter of classical quid pro quo corruption – the exchange of campaign dollars for votes – than it is the dependence of so many of our elected officials on these megadonations. </p>
<p>Elected officials are often reluctant to take positions that are at odds with the interests of their large donors, and what gets on – or stays off – the legislative agenda can be driven by donor concerns. </p>
<p>This tends to be more significant for issues that get little media attention – who gets a specific tax break or regulatory relief – than for hot-button concerns. But it inevitably <a href="https://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/files/NTJ-business-lower-tax-rates.pdf">shapes who benefits from government action</a>, <a href="https://www.press.umich.edu/2454352/influence_of_campaign_contributions_in_state_legislatures">who is harmed and who is ignored</a>. </p>
<p>As <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/2003/02-1674">the Supreme Court explained</a> in sustaining the McCain-Feingold Act’s ban on soft money, “The evidence connects soft money to manipulations of the legislative calendar, leading to Congress’s failure to enact, among other things, generic drug legislation, tort reform and tobacco legislation.” </p>
<p>Federal budget director and former Congressman Mick Mulvaney <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/24/us/mulvaney-consumer-financial-protection-bureau.html">put the matter with disarming candor</a>: “We had a hierarchy in my office in Congress. If you’re a lobbyist who never gave us money, I didn’t talk to you. If you’re a lobbyist who gave us money, I might talk to you.” </p>
<p>The campaign finance system certainly has implications for the health of our democracy. But for those concerned with democratic representation, I believe their focus ought to be on the sources of campaign money – and on finding ways to bring in more small donations and no-strings-attached contributions – than on the spending itself.</p>
<p><em>An updated version of this story can be found <a href="https://theconversation.com/election-2020-sees-record-11-billion-in-campaign-spending-mostly-from-a-handful-of-super-rich-donors-145381">here</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/104093/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Richard Briffault does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Congressional midterm election spending will likely hit a record $5 billion. But the spending masks the main problem with US campaign financing: who gives the money and what they may get in return.Richard Briffault, Joseph P. Chamberlain Professor of Legislation, Columbia UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1044522018-10-29T10:39:29Z2018-10-29T10:39:29ZMoney in elections doesn’t mean what you think it does<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/242489/original/file-20181026-7059-1vsmlw0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Money in politics? Somebody's got to pay for those signs.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/2016-Election-Florida-Voting/30ff377c698843de8319ffa28b590c51/144/0">AP/John Raoux</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Money is indispensable in American electoral campaigns. Without it, candidates cannot amplify their message to reach voters and it’s harder to motivate people to take interest and vote. </p>
<p>Nevertheless, a <a href="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/05/08/most-americans-want-to-limit-campaign-spending-say-big-donors-have-greater-political-influence/">May 2018 Pew survey</a> revealed a bipartisan 70 percent of respondents said individual and group spending in elections should be limited. </p>
<p>But does the American public understand the actual role played by campaign spending?</p>
<p>I’m a <a href="https://polisci.ufl.edu/suzanne-robbins/">political scientist who studies American politics</a>. Here are the answers to fundamental questions that voters should ask about the role of money in elections.</p>
<h2>How much do elections cost?</h2>
<p>Running for federal office is expensive. According the <a href="http://www.cfinst.org/pdf/federal/2016Report/CFIGuide_MoneyinFederalElections.pdf">Campaign Finance Institute</a>, the cost of winning a U.S. House seat in 2016 was over US$1.5 million. All told, approximately $816 million was spent by 723 major party candidates for the U.S. House. </p>
<p>The average amount a House candidate spent in 2016 was $1.2 million. However, there’s a lot of variation depending on what type of candidate you are. </p>
<p><iframe id="inHfG" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/inHfG/3/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>Republicans and incumbents, for example, spent more on average than challengers and those running in open-seat contests in 2016. In fact, the average challenger spent less than half a million dollars, or about one-fourth the amount an incumbent spent. </p>
<p>Those figures don’t include money spent by parties and outside entities to influence the election. Federal law dictates that groups, parties and individuals – including the groups known as <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/superpacs.php">super PACs</a> – can make what are called <a href="https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/making-disbursements-pac/independent-expenditures-nonconnected-pac/">“independent expenditures”</a> for or against a candidate, so long as they do not coordinate with the candidate. </p>
<p>Spending from the major parties and super PACs in House and Senate races more than tripled between 1998 to 2016, growing from $267 million to $978.6 million. </p>
<h2>Can money buy an election?</h2>
<p>Money is necessary for a candidate to be competitive, but it doesn’t ensure success. </p>
<p>A lack of money can eliminate less capable candidates, but having money does not guarantee that a particular candidate’s message will resonate with the voters. As Campaign Finance Institute researchers <a href="http://www.cfinst.org/Press/PReleases/18-03-08/CFI%E2%80%99s_GUIDE_TO_MONEY_IN_FEDERAL_ELECTIONS_%E2%80%93_2016_IN_HISTORICAL_CONTEXT.aspx">Michael Malbin and Brendan Glavin write</a>, “If voters do not like what they are hearing, telling them more of the same will not change their opinion.” </p>
<p>So how does money matter?</p>
<p>Money can affect which candidates run. Specifically, early money – or money raised before the primary – matters especially in this regard. </p>
<p>Candidates can prove their viability by raising significant sums before the first advertisements air. Landing some big donors before the first advertisements or primary allows candidates time to build campaign infrastructure. Insiders refer to this as the “invisible primary.” Media stories on the invisible primary for the 2020 presidential election are <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/386823-invisible-primary-has-already-begun-for-dems">well underway</a>. </p>
<p>Money matters more for challengers than it does for incumbents. Decades of political science research demonstrates that the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/08/upshot/a-campaign-dollars-power-is-more-valuable-to-a-challenger.html">more a challenger spends, the more likely he or she is to win</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/242482/original/file-20181026-7050-1cw4xk0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/242482/original/file-20181026-7050-1cw4xk0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/242482/original/file-20181026-7050-1cw4xk0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/242482/original/file-20181026-7050-1cw4xk0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/242482/original/file-20181026-7050-1cw4xk0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=495&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/242482/original/file-20181026-7050-1cw4xk0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=495&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/242482/original/file-20181026-7050-1cw4xk0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=495&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Money helps get citizens engaged in elections.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/hand-holding-white-loudspeaker-dollars-flying-382771240?src=8rDe_E4BPJZsKG_57JP1FA-1-7">Shutterstock/ImageFlow</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>That’s because incumbents have many advantages, not the least of which is name recognition and free media. So, challengers must spend more to overcome the obstacles they face, from name recognition to formidable incumbent war chests meant to scare off a challenger. Unfortunately for challengers, those barriers are high enough that they rarely raise enough money to compete.</p>
<p>Yet money does not guarantee a victory. Simply looking at the average <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/bigspenders.php?cycle=2016&display=A&sort=D&Memb=S">amount spent by winners and losers</a> obscures the fact that many races have no real competition. </p>
<p>In 2016, winning incumbents far outspent their challengers, but the winners in open seat contests spent nearly the same amount as their opponents, while those incumbents who lost outspent their winning opponents half of the time. </p>
<p><iframe id="He1Eq" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/He1Eq/5/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>In short, incumbents who spend more than their opponent in contested races are more likely to be the candidates who are vulnerable and lose. </p>
<h2>Does money buy influence?</h2>
<p>Money matters in the most competitive races, open seat races that have no incumbent and those with high profile candidates. More money will be spent by the candidates in these races, but also by those who would like to influence the outcome. </p>
<p>One concern that is often expressed is that winners answer to their donors and those organizations who support them. </p>
<p>Since 2010, the role of outside money, or money from super PACs and political nonprofits, has raised alarms <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/07/12/secret-money-funds-more-than-40-percent-outside-congressional-tv-ads-midterm-elections/777536002/">in the media</a> and from <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2018/10/in-tight-senate-races-dark-money-backs-dems-hammers-gop/">reform groups</a>. </p>
<p>Some assert that self-financed candidates or those candidates who can demonstrate widespread support from small donors can allay concerns about the potential influence of donors on candidates and elected officials.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/outvscand.php?cycle=2016">Center for Responsive Politics</a> notes that outside organizations alone have outspent more than two dozen candidates in the last three electoral cycles and are poised to outspend 27 so far in 2018. </p>
<p><iframe id="SfYcu" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/SfYcu/2/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>However, it’s not always clear how useful that spending is: The <a href="https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/bensmith/the-incredibly-dumb-political-spending-of-2012">2012</a> election provides many examples. </p>
<p>Billionaire Republican donor <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/sheldon-adelson-donor-republicans-219598">Sheldon Adelson backed a super PAC</a> supporting former House Speaker Newt Gingrich after Gingrich was no longer a viable presidential contender. It extended the Republican presidential primary at a time when Mitt Romney could have been raising money and consolidating support for the general election. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/koch-backed-political-network-built-to-shield-donors-raised-400-million-in-2012-elections/2014/01/05/9e7cfd9a-719b-11e3-9389-09ef9944065e_story.html?utm_term=.f1618de12dd4">libertarian, conservative PAC Americans for Prosperity</a>, founded by the Koch brothers, often ran ads at odds with the Republican message. Other outside groups poured money into races that simply were not winnable. </p>
<p>By 2016, it appears that super PACs were spending for more calculated effect, focusing on competitive races. In addition, much of that “outside money” comes from the super PACs associated with the two main parties. </p>
<p>For example, in <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/races/outside-spending?cycle=2016&id=CA07&spec=N">California’s 7th congressional district</a>, outside groups spent approximately $9.1 million, in roughly equal amounts between the incumbent, Democrat Ami Bera, and challenger, Republican Scott Jones. The vast majority (85.7 percent) of the outside spending came from party organizations – the National Republican Congressional Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Congressional Leadership Fund and House Majority PAC – not from interest groups. Bera won re-election with 51.2 percent of the vote. </p>
<p>Some candidates use their own money for their campaigns to avoid appearing indebted to donors. </p>
<p>For example, wealthy Florida Republican Gov. Rick Scott has given his current U.S. Senate campaign <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/races/candidates?cycle=2018&id=FLS1&spec=N">$38.9 million dollars – 71.3 percent of all funds raised</a>. </p>
<p>But self-funding does not resolve the democratic dilemma of responsiveness. </p>
<p>First, <a href="https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2014/11/6/1332017/-Self-Funded-Candidates-The-Track-Record">Daily Kos</a> found that most self-financed candidates lose – and the more they spend, the more likely they are to lose the election. Generally, the only exceptions are candidates like Rick Scott, who already hold elective office. </p>
<p>Second, this way of improving responsiveness is limited because it effectively precludes anyone but the wealthy from holding office.</p>
<p>Small donors seem like a democratic solution to wealthy donors dominating election giving. Several recent campaigns – Bernie Sanders, Rand Paul, Barack Obama and now Donald Trump – have created effective small-donor fundraising machines. </p>
<p>More small donors means <a href="http://prospect.org/article/small-donors-may-soon-be-only-way-fight-big-money">more widespread support, at least in theory</a>, but that theory has limitations. </p>
<p>Small donors are not yet giving enough to counter big money. <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/campaign-finance-fundraising-citizens-united/504425/">In fact, the share small donors contribute relative to big money is declining</a>. </p>
<p>Moreover, political science doesn’t yet know enough about who small donors are – whether they are economically representative of the U.S. as a whole or even if they are <a href="https://psmag.com/news/the-people-who-finance-political-campaigns">more ideologically motivated to give, contributing to polarization in politics</a>.</p>
<h2>What’s so good about money?</h2>
<p>Yes, incumbents can amass huge war chests to scare off opponents, and money can be most effective in competitive races. All that extra spending translates into additional advertising and get-out-the-vote efforts. </p>
<p>In the end, what does that mean? </p>
<p>It means more information about the candidates and issues for voters, increased interest in the campaign and increased voter turnout. </p>
<p>That’s good for democracy.</p>
<p>Focusing on the putative evils of money diminishes the importance of other things that may help or hinder a candidate. Other major elements that can influence the outcome of a campaign: candidates who face national political and economic tides and local political concerns; candidates who choose to challenge formidable incumbents; and many candidates who simply aren’t viable. </p>
<p>It’s easy to see a correlation between winning and fundraising because money flows to likely winners and competitive races. </p>
<p>But, as scholars like to say, correlation is not causation. In the world of politics and campaigns, money is meaningful. It just may not mean what, and as much as, most people think it means.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/104452/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Suzanne Robbins does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Is money the root of all evil in politics? It’s easy to see a correlation between winning and fundraising – money flows to likely winners and competitive races. But correlation is not causation.Suzanne Robbins, Assistant Professor of political science, University of FloridaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1020242018-08-23T16:26:57Z2018-08-23T16:26:57ZThere’s a dark history to the campaign finance laws Michael Cohen broke — and that should worry Trump<p>Politics usually takes a summer vacation in August. But not during the Trump administration. </p>
<p>On Aug. 21, Michael Cohen, who until recently was President Trump’s long-time personal lawyer, surrendered to federal prosecutors in Manhattan after months of <a href="https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/michael-cohen-pleads-guilty-manhattan-federal-court-eight-counts-including-criminal-tax">investigation into tax evasion</a> and other crimes dating back to 2011. </p>
<p>Cohen <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4779489-Cohen-Information.html#document/p1">pleaded guilty</a> to violating a variety of laws, including two United States campaign finance laws: a ban on corporate contributions to candidates for federal office and the limit on individual campaign contributions. </p>
<p>The charges could land Cohen up to 65 years in jail, but his deal with prosecutors is likely to knock his sentence down to about five years. It may also have serious repercussions for President Donald Trump. </p>
<h2>No corporate gifts</h2>
<p>The United States government first began regulating money in elections in 1907 with the <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30118">Tillman Act</a>, which today still bars corporations from donating to political candidates. </p>
<p>Cohen broke that law when he, according to the <a href="https://www.lawfareblog.com/document-michael-cohen-plea-agreement">criminal information</a> filed in court, “caused” American Media Inc. – owner of the tabloid National Inquirer – to pay former Playboy playmate Karen McDougal US$150,000 to stay quiet about her alleged affair with Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential race. </p>
<p>American Media Inc. also likely violated the Tillman Act with this payment, but prosecutors have not yet indicted individuals there. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233284/original/file-20180823-149493-2medwj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233284/original/file-20180823-149493-2medwj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/233284/original/file-20180823-149493-2medwj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/233284/original/file-20180823-149493-2medwj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/233284/original/file-20180823-149493-2medwj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/233284/original/file-20180823-149493-2medwj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/233284/original/file-20180823-149493-2medwj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Trump lawyer Michael Cohen surrendered to the FBI on Aug. 21, 2018.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/Kevin Hagen</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The Tillman Act was inspired by <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1474421">a 1904 election scandal</a> in which New York insurance companies secretly gave their policy holders’ money to the Republican Party to help Theodore Roosevelt get elected president.</p>
<p>After the news broke that illicit funds had helped finance his campaign, Roosevelt – by then the sitting president – <a href="https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CRECB-1905-pt1-v39/content-detail.html">addressed Congress</a>, decrying the dangers of corporate money in American democracy. </p>
<p>Calling for “vigorous measures,” Roosevelt said the nation must “protect the integrity of the elections of its own officials” because there was “no enemy of free government more dangerous and none so insidious” as corporate financing. </p>
<p>Congress eventually agreed with him. For the past century, the Tillman Act has banned corporations from influencing elections by directly donating to federal candidates like Donald Trump.</p>
<h2>Stormy Daniels and the $2,700 spending cap</h2>
<p>The second campaign finance law Cohen violated, <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30116">the individual contribution limit</a>, also emerged from political scandal – a pattern I’ve observed in my years <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=584767">studying U.S. campaign finance law</a>. </p>
<p>Since 1974 the United States has capped the amount a person can contribute to a presidential candidate in a single campaign. </p>
<p>When Cohen gave $130,000 to the adult film actress Stormy Daniels in October 2016 in exchange for her silence about an alleged affair with Trump, he exceeded the current $2,700 limit. </p>
<p>The money, which Cohen got from a fraudulently obtained home equity line of credit – a separate crime – is considered a campaign contribution because, as Cohen <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/michael-cohen-guilty-plea-says-payoffs-were-meant-to-influence-2016-election-in-court-today-2018-08-21/">recently told a federal judge in New York</a>, it was paid “for the principle purpose of influencing the election.” </p>
<p>The individual contribution limit traces back to Watergate. </p>
<p>President Richard Nixon’s Committee to Re-Elect the President – the campaign committee known as “CREEP” – <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2046832">used its money to pay</a> the Republican operatives who broke into the Democratic National Committee headquarters in the Watergate Building in Washington, D.C. during the 1972 presidential race. </p>
<p>CREEP had both illegal and legal campaign funds in its coffers. The illegal moneys included sizable gifts from donors who wanted Nixon to appoint them to coveted foreign ambassadorships, a practice known to both Republican and Democratic presidents. </p>
<p>The legal contributions to Nixon’s campaign included large contributions from wealthy donors who wanted to wield other forms of influence in the White House. </p>
<p>At the president’s instruction, his aides and friends <a href="https://www.publicintegrity.org/2011/11/10/7382/nixon-grand-jury-100000-cash-contributions-and-rewarding-donors-ambassadorships">solicited secret $100,000 donations</a> from such leaders of industry as billionaire Howard Hughes and agribusiness titan Dwayne Andreas. Sometimes the money was “contributed” to Nixon’s campaign in envelopes of cash delivered to the Oval Office.</p>
<p>After Watergate exposed these campaign practices, the public responded with revulsion. <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1593253">One out of every four letters sent to Congress</a> was from Americans demanding stronger rules governing money in politics. The response was the 1974 <a href="http://www.cfinst.org/law/federal.aspx">Federal Election Campaign Act</a>. </p>
<p>This bipartisan reform created the Federal Election Commission, which enforces campaign finance laws, and required federal candidates, political action committees, parties and independent political spenders to disclose their political spending. It also limited maximum individual campaign contributions to $1,000. </p>
<p>A <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Bipartisan_Campaign_Reform_Act">2002 bipartisan reform</a> of the act raised that amount to $2,000. In 2016 the contribution cap increased to $2,700 to account for inflation.</p>
<h2>What Cohen’s crimes mean for Trump</h2>
<p>Despite President Trump and his legal team’s claims to the contrary, <a href="https://billmoyers.com/story/violating-certain-campaign-finance-laws-criminal-offenses/">these two campaign finance violations are crimes</a>. </p>
<p>When he pleaded guilty, Cohen also <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/21/michael-cohen-testified-under-oath-that-donald-trump-directed-him-to-commit-a-crime-lawyer-says.html">testified under oath</a> that he committed the felonies “in coordination and at the direction of a candidate for federal office.”</p>
<p>If true, these admissions mean President Trump took part in Cohen’s crimes. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233285/original/file-20180823-149493-tdmb52.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233285/original/file-20180823-149493-tdmb52.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/233285/original/file-20180823-149493-tdmb52.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/233285/original/file-20180823-149493-tdmb52.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/233285/original/file-20180823-149493-tdmb52.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/233285/original/file-20180823-149493-tdmb52.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/233285/original/file-20180823-149493-tdmb52.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Based on Cohen’s testimony, Trump may be what’s called an ‘unindicted co-conspirator’ in his lawyer’s crimes.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Elizabeth Williams via AP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>So far, this is not new territory for the country. President Nixon was also found to be what’s called an “<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1974/06/07/archives/jury-named-nixon-a-coconspirator-but-didnt-indict-st-clair-confirms.html">unindicted co-conspirator</a>” in the Watergate cover-up, meaning he committed crimes but was not charged for them. </p>
<p>Nixon resigned from office <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2017/05/29/richard-nixon-was-not-impeached-despite-what-hillary-clinton-and-others-say/?utm_term=.892d0da94f19">before Congress could formally impeach him</a>. He was <a href="http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=4696">pardoned by President Gerald Ford</a>, so the Department of Justice never had to face the constitutional crisis of prosecuting a sitting president.</p>
<p>Both Trump and White House officials have <a href="https://www.axios.com/sarah-sanders-trump-cohen-manafort-daniels-payment-d85ebe25-8670-4102-874e-e9d3f7524021.html">repeatedly denied</a> responsibility for Cohen’s criminal acts. This leaves Special Counsel Robert Mueller and <a href="https://www.vox.com/2018/4/18/17252554/trump-cohen-new-york-state-laws">other prosecutors</a> in a quandary about how to proceed with these campaign finance violations. </p>
<p>Like Nixon, the president of the United States may now be an unindicted co-conspirator in felonies committed by his lawyer. But, so far, Trump shows no signs of resigning.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/102024/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ciara C Torres-Spelliscy has received funding from Public Citizen. She is affiliated with the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law. </span></em></p>Trump’s former personal lawyer broke two laws that control political spending, both passed after major election scandals. President Roosevelt survived his campaign’s misdeeds. Nixon did not.Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, Leroy Highbaugh Sr. Research Chair and Professor of Law, Stetson University Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/764952017-06-21T04:40:58Z2017-06-21T04:40:58ZMost expensive race in House history turns out nearly 58 percent of Georgia district’s voters<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/174843/original/file-20170621-30211-1ggitxa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Republican candidate for Georgia's Sixth District congressional seat Karen Handel declares victory with her husband Steve.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/John Bazemore</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>I’m a political science professor living in Georgia’s Sixth House district, where <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/georgia-congressional-runoff-ossoff-handel">Republican Karen Handel</a> eked out a victory of nearly four points over Democrat John Ossoff in a special House election on June 20.</p>
<p>And although I have made a career out of observing and teaching others about politics, I’m just relieved the race is over. The word “ubiquitous” doesn’t begin to describe the special election’s presence. </p>
<p>For months, the district has been flooded with every kind of campaign advocacy imaginable: phone calls, mailers, television commercials, lawn signs and ads showing up on every online platform you can think of. Most households have been receiving multiple phone calls every day and multiple home visits from canvassers every week, and everyone has been exposed to more advertising than they can ever remember seeing. I counted 31 pieces of campaign-related mail in just one week. Some residents are even getting campaign texts on their cellphones.</p>
<p>This is because of the astonishing amount of <a href="https://www.issueone.org/money-behind-expensive-u-s-house-race-history/">money spent</a> on the race. A typical competitive House race sees a total of about US$5 million spent, and the previous record for the most expensive House race ever was $20 million. During the Georgia Sixth special election, the two candidates together spent about $33 million, and outside groups added about another $27 million on top of that. That nearly $60 million total represents almost $100 for every man, woman and child who lives in the district. It is the most expensive U.S. House race in the country’s history.</p>
<p>What’s interesting is what all this money and activity did and didn’t do. </p>
<h2>The effects of advertising</h2>
<p>There is very little evidence that the campaigns helped many people decide whom to vote for. At the start of the race in April, just 5 percent of voters were undecided, and the candidates’ numbers barely moved since. The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia%27s_6th_congressional_district_special_election,_2017#Polling">dozen polls</a> taken over the course of the runoff all showed Ossoff and Handel’s support hovering within a few tight percentage points over the entire two months. </p>
<p>Consider the results of the first round of voting. Ossoff <a href="http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/GA/67317/Web02-state/#/">easily won</a> that round with 48.1 percent to Handel’s 19.8 percent, but those totals are misleading. More important is that all the Democratic candidates put together received 49 percent of the vote (the four other Democrats on the ballot split less than 1 percent between them) and Republicans received 51 percent (there were <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Georgia%27s_6th_Congressional_District_special_election,_2017">10 on the ballot</a>; four were serious contenders). Those results presaged the tight contest that occurred once the race narrowed to just two contenders.</p>
<p>On the other hand, the massive amount of attention devoted to the race ensured everyone in the district knew about the election, when it would take place, who the candidates were and what party each one represented. This high level of information translated into very high turnout. Normally, turnout in House special elections is about 10 percent. The <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Georgia%27s_9th_Congressional_District_elections,_2012">last time we had one in Georgia</a> was in 2010, when Nathan Deal resigned his House seat to run for governor. That time, 52,000 people voted in the first round, and 40,000 in the second round, out of about 450,000 registered voters.</p>
<p>This time around, 192,000 people voted in the first round, and 259,000 voted in the second round, with roughly the same number of registered voters. That’s an increase in turnout of more than five times the number of voters from 2010 and about 58 percent of registered voters, <a href="http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2017/06/20/georgia-6th-how-the-rain-could-affect-turnout-for-ossoff-handel/">despite concerns</a> over rain on Election Day.</p>
<p>Little movement on voter preferences and a surge in turnout are what political scientists would expect for a race with exceptionally high spending. <a href="http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.2307/2132225">Elections research shows</a> that campaigns typically don’t get a lot of people to <a href="https://sites.duke.edu/hillygus/files/2014/06/HillygusJackman.pdf">change their minds</a> about whom to vote for. But they do provide <a href="http://www.temple.edu/tempress/titles/1922_reg.html">voters with information</a> about the upcoming election, which in turn can <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=BZg4CTbPBYIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+spectacle+of+us+senate+campaigns&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjpn-Ch7srUAhVEET4KHXZ6BNAQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=the%20spectacle%20of%20us%20senate%20campaigns&f=false">drive up</a> <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1065912908319575">turnout</a>. </p>
<h2>What’s the big picture?</h2>
<p>Another factor that put this race on the map – and the reason so much money was spent on it in the first place – is that many people view it as a proxy for the failure or success of President Donald Trump’s administration. People have strong feelings about Trump, one way or the other, and many of them channeled those feelings into advocacy for Ossoff or Handel.</p>
<p>So what does the race mean for politics going forward? </p>
<p>As a clue about what might happen in 2018, it might not mean as much as some people want to believe. Handel’s close victory might give the Republican Party a morale boost. What’s really important is the broader pattern of how Republican candidates are doing compared to how Trump did in those same districts in 2016. </p>
<p>Democrats have some reason to be optimistic. </p>
<p>In the special election that took place in <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/south-carolina-house-special-election">South Carolina’s Fifth District</a> on the same day as Georgia’s, Republican Ralph Norman received 51.1 percent of the vote in a district where Trump got 57.3 percent just five months earlier.</p>
<p>In April, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/kansas-house-special-election-district-4">Kansas Republican Ron Estes</a> received 52.5 percent of the vote in a district where Trump got 60.4 percent. </p>
<p>In May, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/montana-house-special-election">Montana Republican Greg Gianforte</a> got 49.9 percent where Trump had won 56 percent. </p>
<p>And in a <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/24/nyregion/special-legislative-election-christine-pellegrino.html">New York state legislative district</a> where Trump won 60 percent of the vote, a Republican candidate polled only 42 percent last month.</p>
<p>On the other hand, the Georgia Sixth District special election bucks that trend. The 10 Republicans collectively beat Trump’s district vote share of 48.3 percent by two points in the first round of voting, and Handel beat it by four points in the runoff. </p>
<p>More immediately, Handel’s victory might give a small boost to Trump’s legislative agenda in Congress. A Democratic victory would have furthered the narrative of Trump’s national unpopularity and convinced some wavering moderate Republicans that they could safely vote against the party on close votes. However, Handel’s victory will probably head that off, allowing Trump and congressional GOP leaders to convince their rank and file to support the party’s program.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/76495/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jeffrey Lazarus does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>But there’s little evidence the high spending changed any minds, says a political scientist who lives in the district.Jeffrey Lazarus, Associate Professor of Political Science, Georgia State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.