Übersicht
Prior to the Citizens United v. FEC U.S. Supreme Court ruling in January 2010, Tennessee prohibited corporations from using their treasury money to fund independent expenditures, even though unions were permitted to do so.1 On March 11, 2010, Tennessee’s attorney general issued an opinion stating that Tennessee’s ban on corporate funding of independent expenditures would probably be ruled unconstitutional under a legal challenge.2 On March 30, the attorney general issued another opinion stating that, while corporations supporting or opposing ballot measures would be required to form a ballot committee and report expenditures, no statute required corporations to disclose their independent spending targeting candidates.3 In June 2010, legislation was passed to require corporations engaging in this spending to register political action committees and disclose their activity.4
Independent expenditures—those that expressly advocate for the election or defeat of a candidate but are not coordinated with the candidate’s campaign—increased in 2010 by 70 percent over 2006, the previous comparable election year.
It is important to note, however, that the totals throughout this report do not include the money spent on electioneering communications—those that identify a candidate and occur near an election but don’t expressly advocate for or against a candidate—because Tennessee does not require electioneering communications expenditures to be reported. This creates a gaping hole in disclosure that could easily be taken advantage of by any entity attempting to influence elections without having to reveal its spending.
It cannot be determined if the increase in reported independent expenditures was due to an influx of corporate treasury money, because that level of detail about the funders is not disclosed. However, contributions raised by candidates more than doubled in 2010 compared to 2006. As a result, although reported independent spending increased by 70 percent, it accounted for a slightly lower relative portion of political spending in the latter cycle.
Independent expenditures were actually highest in 2008, before corporate dollars were permitted to be used. The Tennessee Democratic Party accounted for much of the increase in 2008, as it was responsible for 72 percent of the reported independent spending that year. Although there was no gubernatorial contest in 2008, there was an intense competition for control of the legislature, and seven legislative races each drew more than $100,000 in independent spending.
Of interest, the 2006 and 2010 gubernatorial races were not close contests and attracted less independent spending: $11,059 and $98,261, respectively. It is again worth noting that it is not possible to ascertain how much was spent on electioneering communications targeting these or other races.
During the 2006–2010 study period, contributions made directly to candidates totaled $81.7 million. Thus, across the three cycles, reported independent spending totaled 92 percent less than the direct contributions to candidates.
Of the $6.1 million in reported independent expenditures from all entities in Tennessee, more than half—$3.4 million—was spent on direct mailings. An additional $1.7 million was spent on broadcast media. Again, electioneering communications are not reported in Tennessee, so this figure is conservative.
This report has two main components. It first examines the availability and quality of data on independent political spending in Tennessee. It then discusses the information and trends found in that data, including the top spenders, and which races and candidates were most targeted.
State of Disclosure in Tennessee
Tennessee defines an “independent expenditure” as
“[…]an expenditure by a person for a communication expressly advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate which is not made with the cooperation or with the prior consent of, or in consultation with, or at the request of, or suggestion of, a candidate or any agent or authorized committee of such candidate.”5
Tennessee does not define electioneering communications (expenditures made within a certain time of an election that do not expressly advocate the election or defeat of a candidate), nor does it require the disclosure of this type of spending.
Ideally, information specific to each expenditure would include the spender’s position (supporting or opposing), the amount of the expenditure, the amount spent to affect each target, the date the expenditure was obligated, the date the expenditure was paid, the name and address of the vendor (or payee) and any subvendors receiving payment, and the purpose of the transaction (such as direct mailings, radio buys, etc.). In this regard, Tennessee performs quite well. Of the aforementioned pieces of information, Tennessee excludes only the obligation date of the expenditure and any subvendor information.6 All independent expenditures are reported with one amount for one target, so the target amount is identified. Additionally, the disclosure reports are filled out quite consistently. In 2009 and 2010, for instance, 440 independent expenditures out of 456, or 96 percent, included a target name, and all independent expenditures included a position of support or oppose.
In Tennessee, independent expenditures exclusively target candidates, and do not target ballot measures as they do in certain other states. Tennessee provides only the name of the candidate targeted, and does not require additional identifying information, such as office, district, date of election, and party affiliation.
Although Tennessee requires spenders to reveal their sources of funds, it is not possible to determine if funds attributed to corporate donors came from their general treasury or some other related source, such as a corporate-sponsored political action committee funded by employees.
Tennessee’s website has a search function that allows the user to generate a list of independent expenditures. The results do not contain only independent expenditures, even if that filter is used, but there is a “Type” field on the list that indicates which expenditures are “independent.” The results can also be downloaded into either an Excel file or a CSV file.
Top Independent Spenders in Tennessee, 2006–2010
From 2006 through 2010, 25 committees spent $6.1 million expressly supporting or opposing candidates who ran for state office in Tennessee. Five of the 25 committees that made independent expenditures were responsible for 95 percent of the money spent 2006–2010.
Party committees dominated the independent spending with $5.1 million, or 83 percent of the independent expenditures. In comparison, party committees contributed $4.2 million directly to candidates in the same time period.
In both 2006 and 2010, no entity spent even $1 million independently, but in 2008 the Tennessee Democratic Party spent $1.9 million—$743,470 of which targeted the races for Senate District 26 and Senate District 12, the two races targeted by the most reported independent spending.
- The Tennessee Democratic Party led the way with nearly $3.6 million, easily eclipsing the other spenders and accounting for 59 percent of all independent expenditures over the three elections. This party committee favored independent spending as a way to try to influence candidate elections; the $3.6 million figure was more than six times the $584,358 this committee spent on direct contributions to Tennessee candidates.
- The Tennessee Legislative Campaign Committee (TLCC), the main campaign fund of the Tennessee Republican Party,7 made $1.1 million in independent expenditures over the 2006–2010 period. Unlike the state Democratic Party, the TLCC spent more on direct contributions to candidates over this time, with $1.7 million.
- The Republican State Leadership Committee (RSLC), a Virginia-based national organization that works to elect Republicans to state-level office, independently spent $752,486 on 19 races, with more than $100,000 spent on two senate races: $185,280 on the 2008 race for Senate District 26 and $113,209 on the 2006 race for Senate District 17.
- The House Republican Caucus Committee spread $276,778 among 32 races, most notably spending $72,549 on the 2010 race for House District 64 and $70,365 on the 2010 race for House District 2.
Political party committees are limited in what they can give directly to candidates’ campaigns,8 which may explain, at least in part, why the Tennessee Democratic Party and the TLCC spent so much independently. Absent these limits, the political parties could have spent large sums in coordination with the candidate, negating the need to spend independently. In 2010, for instance, statewide candidates could accept a maximum aggregate of $250,000 from all party committees per election, with the primary and general being considered separate elections. Senate and house candidates could accept $40,000 and $20,000, respectively.9 The state Democratic Party was the only party committee to report more money spent independently than it made in direct contributions to candidates. However, because electioneering communications are not reported in Tennessee, it is not possible to definitively determine if other political parties spent more on contributions than they spent independently.
The RSLC was one of two out-of-state spenders. The National Rifle Association, also based in Virginia, spent $7,429 targeting 20 legislative races in 2008. Together, the money from these two out-of-state spenders amounted to 12 percent of the 2006–2010 money used for independent expenditures in Tennessee.
Top Funders of Independent Spending in Tennessee, 2006–2010
In all, $18.2 million was contributed to committees making independent expenditures. Nine of the top 10 contributors were party committees or organizations strongly aligned with the party structures, and leadership committees. The other top contributor was a labor union, the Service Employees International Union. Most of the money from the top 10 funders ($6.3 of $7.6 million) went to party committees.
The Republican Governors Association led the funders, giving all of its nearly $1.3 million to the Tennessee Legislative Campaign Committee.
2010 Elections in Tennessee
In 2010, independent expenditures targeting state candidates totaled $2.2 million, although again, this excludes electioneering communications because they are not reported. Contributions directly to candidates totaled $44.2 million, or 20 times more than the reported independent spending. Only 11 committees reported making independent expenditures in Tennessee in 2010, four of which were party committees.
The two state parties—the Republicans’ Tennessee Legislative Campaign Committee (TLCC) and the Tennessee Democratic Party—were the only two committees that made more than $500,000 in independent expenditures. Both targeted the race for Senate District 27 more than any other.
Overall, state house races were targeted with $1.3 million in independent spending, senate races attracted $642,068, and the gubernatorial contest (which was generally considered non-competitive) was targeted by $98,261.
The five most heavily targeted races were legislative contests. The TLCC led the independent spending on these contests with $446,944.
No other race approached the amount of independent spending leveled at the Senate District 27 race, which featured a rematch of the closely contested 2006 battle between Republican Don McLeary and Democrat Lowe Finney. Finney was the incumbent in this 2010 contest, but in the 2006 race, McLeary had been the incumbent and Finney the challenger. Finney won the 2010 contest.
- In the Senate District 27 race, McLeary’s independent support came entirely from the TLCC and his independent opposition came entirely from the Tennessee Democratic Party. Finney was exclusively targeted by these two groups, as well, but with their positions reversed.
- In the House District 64 contest, Democratic incumbent Ty Cobb’s independent support came entirely from the Tennessee Democratic Party. The independent opposition was led by the House Republican Caucus of Tennessee with $71,686. Republican challenger Sheila Butt, who won, was supported most heavily by the TLCC, with $26,154. Her opposition all came from the Tennessee Democratic Party.
- In the race for Senate District 17, Republican incumbent Mae Beavers was independently supported by $150,830 from the TLCC. Her Democratic opponent, George McDonald, was not targeted by independent spending. Beavers won reelection.
- The Tennessee Democratic Party provided all of the independent support for Democratic challenger Nathan Vaughn in the House District 2 contest. Most of Vaughn’s independent opposition came from the House Republican Caucus of Tennessee, which targeted him with $56,116. The incumbent in this race was Republican Tony Shipley. Shipley was supported almost equally by the TLCC, which targeted him with $17,887, and the House Republican Caucus of Tennessee, which targeted him with $14,249. All of Shipley’s opposition came from the Tennessee Democratic Party.
- The open seat in Senate District 7 drew a contest between sitting Republican Representative Stacey Campfield and Democrat Randy Walker. Campfield’s independent support came exclusively from the TLCC, and Walker’s independent support came exclusively from the Tennessee Democratic Party. Campfield won.
2008 Elections in Tennessee
The 2008 election featured an intense battle over control of the state legislature, which the Republicans won when they took over both the house and the senate.10 Reported independent expenditures totaled $2.7 million, higher than either the 2006 or the 2010 gubernatorial election years.
Seven legislative races were each targeted by more than $100,000 in independent expenditures. The 2008 independent spending total was 83 percent less than the $16.3 million in contributions given directly to candidates, which was also substantially higher than in 2006 or 2010.
As in 2010, only 11 committees reported independent expenditures in 2008. The Tennessee Democratic Party accounted for 72 percent of the independent spending.
Overall, state senate races were targeted by $1.6 million and house races by $1.1 million in independent express advocacy spending. The Tennessee Senate in particular was a major battleground, with 33 seats evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats going into the election, and one sitting independent.
No other race approached the money spent independently on the open seat in Senate District 26. Including that race, four of the five races targeted most heavily by independent expenditures were for open seats. The race for Senate District 22 featured a sitting incumbent who was in a unique situation, discussed below. The Tennessee Democratic Party was easily the most prolific independent spender on these five races, targeting them with $1.2 million.
- The race for Senate District 26 was for an open seat, following the retirement of the long-time senate speaker, Democrat John Wilder. The Tennessee Democratic Party’s independent expenditures targeting this race reached $434,041, more than any other committee’s independent expenditures statewide. The Tennessee Democratic Party provided all of the opposition to Republican Dolores Gresham and almost all of the support for Democrat Randy Camp. The Republican State Leadership Committee provided all of Camp’s opposition. The Tennessee Legislative Campaign Committee kicked in $49,688 to support Gresham. Gresham won this race.
- The Tennessee Democratic Party was also the highest spender targeting Senate District 12. This party committee provided all of the independent spending support for Democrat Becky Ruppe and all of the spending opposing Republican Ken Yager. Expenditures opposing Ruppe came entirely from the Republican State Leadership Committee.
- In the race for the House District 36 seat, the Tennessee Democratic Party provided all of the independent support for Democrat Roger Byrge and the Republican State Leadership Committee provided almost all of his opposition. The Tennessee Legislative Campaign Committee (TLCC) was Republican Chad Faulkner’s biggest independent supporter with $22,210. All of Faulkner’s independent opposition came from the Tennessee Democratic Party.
- In the House District 48 race, the Tennessee Democratic Party provided all of the independent support for Democrat Tim Tipps and all of the opposition to Republican Joe Carr. The Republican State Leadership Committee’s independent expenditures provided almost all of Tipps’ opposition; it was Carr’s leading supporter with $6,704.
- In the Democratic primary for Senate District 22, incumbent Rosalind Kurita defeated challenger Tim Barnes. However, Kurita had voted for a Republican in a senate leadership vote, to the dissatisfaction of the Tennessee Democratic Party. After Kurita won the primary, the Tennessee Democratic Party rejected her nomination and instead nominated Barnes as its candidate for the general election. Kurita then launched a write-in campaign for the general election. The Tennessee Democratic Party provided all of the independent expenditures supporting Barnes, who won. A court case addressing the legality of the Tennessee Democratic Party’s rejection of Kurita’s candidacy on the Democratic ticket is pending.11
2006 Elections in Tennessee
In 2006, independent expenditures targeting state candidates totaled $1.3 million. This figure was 94 percent less than the $21.2 million contributed directly to candidates.
Independent spending targeted 49 of the 117 state races on the ballot in 2006, or 42 percent. Three-quarters of the independent spending supported the targeted candidates.
Sixteen committees used independent spending to attempt to influence the elections, although a handful of these did not spend even $1,000. As in 2008, the Tennessee Democratic Party was the most prolific independent spender.
Republicans Achieving a Majority (RAAMPAC), the leadership committee of Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey, spent almost twice as much money on direct contributions to candidates as it did on independent spending, and all of its independent spending was made to support the same three incumbent candidates who had received contributions from this committee.
The five-most-targeted races were for legislative seats. Four of these featured an incumbent and a challenger; only the House District 67 seat was open. These top five races were targeted by $764,885 in independent spending, of which $532,562 came from the Tennessee Democratic Party. The Republican State Leadership Committee independently spent $195,442 on these races.
- In Senate District 17, Democrat Bob Rochelle mounted an unsuccessful challenge against sitting Republican incumbent Mae Beavers. The Tennessee Democratic Party was Rochelle’s biggest independent supporter with $126,312. The Republican State Leadership Committee provided all of Rochelle’s independent opposition. Of the independent spending supporting Beavers, $11,560 came from RAAMPAC.
- The race for Senate District 27 also featured a Democratic challenger and a Republican incumbent, but here the challenger was successful. Democrat Lowe Finney received $126,574 of his independent support from the Tennessee Democratic Party and all of his independent opposition from the Republican State Leadership Committee. Republican Don McLeary received all of his independent support from RAAMPAC and all of his independent opposition from the Tennessee Democratic Party.
- In the open House District 67 race, The Tennessee Democratic Party provided all of the independent support for Democrat Joe Pitts and all of the independent opposition for Republican Ken Takasaki. Pitts won.
- The Tennessee Democratic Party provided all of the independent spending supporting Democratic incumbent Fred Phillips and all of the independent opposition to Republican challenger Matthew Hill in the race for House District 7. Hill unseated Phillips.
- In the House District 47 contest, the Tennessee Democratic Party provided all of the independent support for Democratic challenger David E. Clark. Clark lost to Republican Judd Matheny.
Fazit
Providing a full picture of the money spent independently in Tennessee is not possible, because the state does not gather spending information about electioneering communications. This is a gaping hole in disclosure and it is imperative that these communication expenditures be disclosed.
Reported independent expenditures—those that expressly advocate for the election or defeat of a candidate but are not coordinated with the candidate’s campaign—in 2010 did increase by 70 percent over the comparable 2006 election; however, it cannot be determined how much of the increase, if any, was due to an influx of corporate funds. Because there was a corresponding spike in contributions in 2010, independent expenditures constituted a similar, though slightly lower, overall portion of the money-in-politics pie than they did in the comparable 2006 election. In fact, independent expenditures were actually highest in 2008, before corporate dollars were permitted to be used.
Most of the money spent independently over the three elections—$5.7 million of $6.1 million—targeted legislative races. Only $109,320 targeted the two gubernatorial races, which was 2 percent of the overall independent spending. The 2006 and 2010 gubernatorial races were not competitive, perhaps explaining why very little independent spending targeted these races.
- 1. “State Laws Affected by Citizens United,” National Conference of State Legislatures, Jan. 4, 2011, available at http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=19607#laws, accessed Sept. 29, 2011.
- 2. Opinion No. 10-30, Tennessee Office of the Attorney General, March 11, 2010, available at http://www.tn.gov/attorneygeneral/op/2010/op/op10-30.pdf, accessed Sept. 29, 2011.
- 3. Opinion No. 10-39, Tennessee Office of the Attorney General, March 30, 2010, available at http://www.tn.gov/attorneygeneral/op/2010/op/op10-39.pdf, accessed Sept. 29, 2011.
- 4. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-10-132. This section was established by HB 3182 in 2010. The history of this bill is available on the website of the Tennessee General Assembly at http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/default.aspx?BillNumber=HB3182&ga=106, accessed Nov. 8, 2011.
- 5. “Citizen’s Guide,” Tennessee Registry of Election Finance, available at http://www.tn.gov/tref/CitizensGuide.htm#5, accessed Nov. 14, 2011.
- 6. The report form for independent expenditures can be found at http://www.state.tn.us/tref/forms/ss-1139.pdf, accessed Nov. 14, 2011.
- 7. Humphrey, Tom, “Republican Governors Donate $575K to GOP's TN Legislative Campaign Committee,” Knoxville News Sentinel’s Humphrey on the Hill blog, Oct. 12, 2010, available at http://blogs.knoxnews.com/humphrey/2010/10/republican-governors-donate-57.html, accessed Nov. 8, 2010.
- 8. The contribution limits for party committees to candidates are detailed in Tennessee statute at Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-10-306. Tennessee state code is published at http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/tncode/, accessed Nov. 14, 2011. This section was amended in 2011 to add paragraph (c).
- 9. Ibid.
- 10. Sher, Andy, “GOP majority in Tennessee Legislature could lead to sweeping change,” Chattanooga Times Free Press, Nov. 5, 2008, available from http://timesfreepress.com/news/2008/nov/05/gop-majority-tennessee-legislature-could-lead-swee/, accessed Nov. 14, 2011.
- 11. “Sixth Circuit Finally Sets Hearing Date for Tennessee Political Party Rights Case,” Ballot Access News, Nov. 4, 2011, available from http://www.ballot-access.org/2011/11/04/sixth-circuit-finally-sets-hearing-date-for-tennessee-political-party-rights-case/, accessed Nov. 15, 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!