by Robin Parkinson | 2011-12-02
Übersicht
The U.S. Supreme Court’s January 2010 Citizens United v. FEC ruling permitted corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts of money from their general treasuries on independent political expenditures. Ohio had not allowed corporations or unions to use money from their treasuries for independent expenditures prior to the Ohio Secretary of State implementing a new rule in January 2011 to comply with Citizens United.1
This report analyzes the independent spending over the last three state elections in Ohio and reviews the quality of disclosure in Ohio. During the 2006–2010 study period, $33.7 million was spent independently, just 13 percent of the $258.4 million raised directly by candidates.
Independent spending more than doubled from 2006 to 2010. However, since the ban on use of corporate and union treasury funds was not lifted until after the 2010 election, the increase cannot be attributed to the Citizens United decision. Instead, the increase in spending was largely due to the Republican Governors Association spending $11.7 million in 2010, making them the top spender and responsible for over a third of the total independent spending. Overall, five entities accounted for 78 percent of the money spent over the three elections.
The most money spent on a race from 2006 through 2010 was $12.5 million, targeting the highly competitive 2010 gubernatorial race between then-incumbent Gov. Ted Strickland and his Republican challenger, John Kasich, who ultimately unseated Strickland. Kasich and his running mate, Mary Taylor, were targeted with $3.5 million in independent spending, $2.6 million of which was electioneering communications. Strickland and Lieutenant Governor Yvette McGee Brown were targeted by $8.9 million, $1.8 million of which was spent via electioneering communications.
During the study period, $9.9 million of the independent expenditures was spent on broadcast media, $4.2 million was spent on direct mail, and $619,871 was spent on consultants. Another $18.7 million, mostly electioneering communications, had no information reported on how the money was spent; however, electioneering communications are, by definition, spent on broadcast media, so the Institute has assumed that that is how the money was spent.
Overall, most of the money spent went to out-of-state vendors. Only 8 percent of the money spent independently was paid to companies located in Ohio. The most money ($11.4 million) was spent in California, followed by Pennsylvania with $5.2 million. Vendors in Washington, D.C. and Florida each also received more than $4 million. Vendors in Ohio came in fifth with $2.8 million.
Although the target of the independent spending is required to be disclosed, 22 percent ($7.3 million) of all independent spending was reported with blank or unidentifiable targets—$6.9 million in electioneering communications and $390,988 in independent expenditures.
Methodology
The National Institute on Money in State Politics collected independent expenditure reports filed by individuals and committees with state disclosure agencies in states that provide robust disclosure. These states define “independent expenditure” and/or “electioneering communications” in statute at least as thoroughly as the federal definition.
The Institute used the information provided on disclosure reports to assign an occupation code to the filers. When that information was not provided, staff conducted additional research to determine a filer’s economic interest, where possible. The occupation codes are based on the Standard Industrial Classification system used by the federal government.
If an expenditure listed multiple targets, and the amount paid did not specify how much was attributable to each target, the target amount was left blank. Therefore, the total spent on each target may be under-reported.
The Institute does not equate money spent in opposition to one candidate with money spent in support of that candidate’s opponent and instead discusses the money spent on each race. Only expenditures made for the purpose of influencing state elections were collected and analyzed for this report.
State of Disclosure in Ohio
Ohio defines independent expenditures as:
“an expenditure by a person advocating the election or defeat of an identified candidate or candidates, that is not made with the consent of, in coordination, cooperation, or consultation with, or at the request or suggestion of any candidate or candidates or of the campaign committee or agent of the candidate or candidates.”2
Electioneering communications are defined as:
“[…]any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that refers to a clearly identified candidate and that is made during either of the following periods of time:
(i) If the person becomes a candidate before the day of the primary election at which candidates will be nominated for election to that office, between the date that the person becomes a candidate and the thirtieth day prior to that primary election, and between the date of the primary election and the thirtieth day prior to the general election at which a candidate will be elected to that office;
(ii) If the person becomes a candidate after the day of the primary election at which candidates were nominated for election to that office, between the date of the primary election and the thirtieth day prior to the general election at which a candidate will be elected to that office.”3
Independent expenditures are reported electronically on three different forms, depending on the type of filer.4 Electioneering communications are reported electronically on one form.5
Although the target of the spending is supposed to be reported for both independent expenditures and electioneering communications, 22 percent ($7.3 million) of all spending from 2006 through 2010 was reported with blank or unidentifiable targets. Of those, $6.9 million spent on electioneering communications was reported without target information, and $390,988 in independent expenditures had no identified target.
There is no easy way to access independent expenditures and electioneering communications reports on Ohio’s campaign finance disclosure site. One can either look through all expenditures to find those that are independent, search through each committee’s filed reports, or download a large database and extract the applicable records. In order to obtain the data for this report, the Institute downloaded a database of more than 180,000 expenditures and pulled out those identified as independent expenditures and electioneering communications.
Top Independent Spenders in Ohio, 2006–2010
Five entities expended 78 percent of the $33.7 million independently spent in Ohio from 2006 through 2010.
- The Republican Governors Association (RGA) is a national 527 organization whose primary mission is to “...help elect Republicans to governorships throughout the nation.”6 The RGA spent $6.6 million on independent expenditures opposing Strickland, $1.8 million in electioneering communications identifying Strickland, and $3.3 million on electioneering communications with no identified target. In 2010, the RGA’s top contributors included $6 million from Bob Perry, of Perry Homes; $1.5 million from Steven Coen, of SAC Capital Advisors; $1.3 million from the Republican State Leadership Committee; $1.1 million from Richard M. DeVos, Sr., of Alticor Corp; $750,000 from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; $750,000 from the United States Sugar Corporation; $625,000 from Exxon Mobile; and $605,000 from Altria.7
- Common Sense 2006 is identified as a “third-party political advocacy group.”8 It was embroiled in a campaign finance lawsuit brought by the Ohio Democratic Party for allegedly failing to disclose their campaign donors in the 2006 election.9 Common Sense 2006 spent money only on electioneering communications. They spent nearly $2 million in electioneering communications identifying J. Kenneth Blackwell, and another $2 million in electioneering communications identifying Ted Strickland.
- Building a Stronger Ohio, backed financially by the Democratic Governors Association and the American Federation of Teachers,10 spent money on electioneering communications targeting Republican gubernatorial candidate Kasich in 2010.
- Partnership for Ohio’s Future also spent money only on electioneering communications during the 2006 and 2008 elections, targeting two supreme court candidates with $2.6 million and unidentified candidates with $1 million. The organization is financially supported by the Ohio Chamber of Commerce and other Ohio businesses.11
- Campaign for the Moderate Majority is an independent expenditure committee formed by various unions, including the 1199 SEIU United Healthcare Workers East, Ohio Education Association, and Food & Commercial Workers Local 1059.12 Campaign for the Moderate Majority targeted gubernatorial and house races from 2006 through 2010. Interestingly, the group opposed Strickland’s bid for governor in 2006 but supported him in 2010.
2010 Elections in Ohio
A total of $20.7 million was spent independently in the 2010 election, which is 18 percent of the $114.6 million raised directly by candidates. Slightly more than $11 million was spent on electioneering communications, and $9.7 million was spent on independent expenditures. Although targets are supposed to be reported, 27 percent of the spending ($5.7 million) failed to identify targets. Most of the unidentified money (all but $4,433) was spent on electioneering communications by three organizations: the Republican Governors Association ($3.3 million), Building a Stronger Ohio ($1.9 million), and AFSCME ($501,056). These three organizations were responsible for 80 percent of the independent spending in 2010.
2010 Gubernatorial Race
All eyes were on the highly competitive 2010 gubernatorial race between then-incumbent Gov. Ted Strickland and his Republican challenger John Kasich. Kasich and Strickland were close in both the amounts of campaign contributions they raised directly and the number of votes they received. Strickland raised $16.5 million and received 47 percent of the vote. Kasich, the winner, raised $18.3 million and received 49 percent of the vote.
The Republican Governors Association (RGA) spent $6.6 million on ads opposing Strickland, and an additional $1.8 million on electioneering communications that identified Strickland. The RGA also spent $3.3 million on unidentified targets, most likely spent on the gubernatorial race. The Ohio Republican Party was the only other entity who spent expressly opposing Strickland, with $375,000.
The Campaign for the Moderate Majority also put much of its resources into the gubernatorial race, spending 65 percent of its independent expenditures to oppose Kasich. Kasich was also opposed directly with $250,000 spent by the 1199 SEIU United Healthcare Workers East, one of the unions that funded the Campaign for a Moderate Majority. Building a Stronger Ohio and AFSCME spent $2.6 million on electioneering communications identifying Kasich ($1.9 million and $635,000, respectively).
How the Money was SpentIn 2010, the most was spent on broadcast media, with $18.9 million. The next highest was direct mailing, at $1.6 million.
Most of the money spent independently went to out-of-state vendors: $10.9 million was paid to Target Enterprises, in Encino, California, for media ads bought by the Republican Governors Association; Great American Media, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, received $5.2 million from Building a Stronger Ohio, AFSCME, and 1199 SEIU United Healthcare Workers East. Overall, only 7 percent of the money spent independently targeting Ohio state candidates in 2010 was paid to companies located in-state.
2008 Elections in Ohio
In 2008, a total of $3.1 million was spent independently—6 percent of the $53.6 million raised directly by candidates. Four spenders were responsible for 93 percent of the total independent spending. More than half of the money ( $1 million) spent on electioneering communications did not identify targets. Although 11 entities filed reports with no identified target, one group, Partnership for Ohio’s Future, was responsible for $943,310 of the unidentified targets.
2008 Top Targeted Races
House races were targeted with the most spending in the 2008 elections, when Democrats gained control of the Ohio House for the first time in more than a decade.13 Of the 21 house races targeted, 8 races each saw more than $100,000 in independent spending. Democratic house candidates were opposed by $861,168 in spending, while Republican house candidates were opposed by $40,674 in spending.
How the Money Was SpentIn 2008, $1.5 million was spent on broadcast media: $985,914 was spent on direct mail and $530,190 was spent on consultants.
The largest payee in 2008 was Compass Media Group, from Chicago, Illinois, which received $895,345 from Campaign for the Moderate Majority for direct mail.
2006 Elections in Ohio
In 2006, a total of $9.9 million was spent independently, which is 11 percent of the $90.2 million raised directly by candidates. Nearly $6.7 million was spent on electioneering communications, and $3.3 million on independent expenditures. A total of $219,443 did not identify a target, $129,989 of which was spent on electioneering communications. Partnership for Ohio’s Future was responsible for $125,208 of the electioneering communications that did not identify a target, and the Ohio Republican Party was responsible for $86,445 of the independent expenditures that did not identify a target.
The top five spenders accounted for 97 percent of the total independent spending in 2006.
All Children Matter Ohio (ACM Ohio), a 527 organization that advocates for charter schools and school vouchers, targeted only legislative races.14 ACM Ohio’s parent company in Michigan, All Children Matter, eventually was fined $5.2 million for campaign violations that occurred in the Ohio 2006 elections.15
2006 Top Targeted Races
The open gubernatorial race between Democrat Ted Strickland and then-Secretary of State Republican J. Kenneth Blackwell attracted $5.2 million in independent spending, which is 54 percent of all the money spent independently and 82 percent less than the $28.5 million raised by the two candidates in direct campaign contributions. A majority of the money spent on the gubernatorial race—nearly $4 million—was spent by Common Sense 2006 on electioneering communications identifying Strickland and Blackwell. Campaign for the Moderate Majority spent $1.1 million opposing Democrat Ted Strickland. Strickland (who raised $16.7 million in direct contributions) defeated Republican J. Kenneth Blackwell (who raised $11.8 million in direct contributions) with over 60 percent of the vote.
How the Money was SpentIn 2006, $8.2 million of independent spending was spent on broadcast media, and $1.6 million of the independent spending was spent on direct mail. Direct mail and broadcast media accounted for 98 percent of the independent spending that year.
The most money was paid to Design 4 Advertising, a company from Brandon, Florida, which received nearly $4 million from Common Sense 2006 for electioneering communications.
Fazit
Independent spending nearly doubled from 2006 to 2010, while direct contributions increased only slightly. Since the ban on use of corporate and union treasury funds was not lifted until after the 2010 election, the increase in spending cannot be attributed to the Citizens United decision. Independent spending, however, still paled in comparison to direct contributions.
Just five entities were responsible for 78 percent of the independent spending; however, this may change in future elections now that Ohio allows treasury money from corporations or unions to be used for independent expenditures.
While disclosure practices in Ohio are fairly good, 22 percent of the independent spending reported from 2006 through 2010 failed to include the required target information: $6.9 million in electioneering communications and $390,988 in independent expenditures. In addition, independent expenditures are filed on multiple reports, which makes them difficult to assemble for analysis.
- 1. “111-3-05 Use of the funds or property of a corporation, nonprofit corporation, or labor organization to advocate the election or defeat of a candidate,” Ohio Administrative Code, available from http://codes.ohio.gov/oac/111-3-05, accessed Nov. 30, 2011.
- 2. Ohio Statues, Title 35 Chapter 3517, available from http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/3517, accessed Nov. 23, 2011.
- 3. Ohio Statues, Title 35 Chapter 3517, available from http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/3517.1011, accessed Nov. 23, 2011.
- 4. Campaign Finance Filing Forms, http://www.sos.state.oh.us/SOS/CampaignFinance/filingRed/CFForms.aspx, accessed Nov. 23, 2011.
- 5. “Ohio Campaign Finance Handbook,” available from http://www.sos.state.oh.us/SOS/Upload/candidates/CFGuide/chapters/2010CFguide_Ch10.pdf, accessed Nov. 23, 2011.
- 6. “About,” Republican Governors Association, available from http://www.rga.org/homepage/about/, accessed Sept. 19, 2011.
- 7. Post-General Election Report 8872, IRS, available from http://forms.irs.gov/politicalOrgsSearch/search/Print.action?formId=59069&formType=E72, accessed Dec. 1, 2011.
- 8. “Court Rules That It Lacks Jurisdiction to Decide Campaign Finance Disclosure Dispute,” The Supreme Court of Ohio & The Ohio Judicial System, Oct. 3, 2006, available from http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/PIO/summaries/2006/1003/061678.asp, accessed Nov. 23, 2011.
- 9. Ibid.
- 10. Naymik, Mark, “Political ads in race for Ohio governor hit airwaves early,” The Plain Dealer, May 30, 2010, available from http://www.cleveland.com/naymik/index.ssf/2010/05/post_4.html, accessed Nov. 18, 2011.
- 11. Partnership for Ohio’s Future, available from http://www.thepartnershipforohiosfuture.org/mx/hm.asp?id=Partnership2010Contributors, accessed Nov. 23, 2011.
- 12. Campaign Finance Disclosure, Ohio Secretary of State, available from http://www2.sos.state.oh.us/pls/cfonline/f?p=119:30:2273221183882667::NO:RP::, accessed Nov. 23, 2011.
- 13. Storey, Tim and Smith, Edward, “Democrats pump up their control of state legislatures, but Republicans also make gains,” SL Magazine: Election 2008 - Making History, National Conference of State Legislatures, December 2008, available from http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=17814, accessed September 19, 2011.
- 14. “All Children Matter Fined for Illegally Funneling Campaign Money,” One Wisconsin Now, Wisconsin Education Association Council, April 11, 2008, available from http://www.weac.org/news_and_publications/at_the_capitol/archives/2007-2008/all_children_matter.aspx, accessed September 19, 2011.
- 15. “Appeal of $5.2 Million Penalty Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction,” Bricker & Eckler Attorneys at Law, available from http://www.bricker.com/services/resource-details.aspx?resourceid=185, accessed November 29, 2011.
Clearly, you're interested in following the money.
It costs more than $2 million a year to provide these verifiable facts about money in politics.
Do you know we simply give it to you, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
How often does that happen elsewhere in your life?
Please donate. You'll help us keep democracy transparent!