Another election, another record for the books. In 2015 and 2016, $404.1 million was spent independently on state elections in 30 states tracked by the National Institute on Money in State Politics, surpassing the record set in 2013 and 2014 by $32 million.1 The bulk of the spending continues to be devoted to a handful of races financed by a handful of spenders.
An examination of independent spending (a.k.a. independent expenditures or outside spending) in 30 states finds:
- Only 15 percent of the roughly 2,000 spenders accounted for 91 percent of the money spent independently during the election cycle.
- Spending on state legislative races largely explains the surge in independent expenditures; in 20 states where data was available in the last four election cycles, legislative candidates were targeted by $175.2 million, up by 63 percent from 2013 and 2014, and up by 105 percent from 2011 and 2012.
- Spending increased by 93 percent from the 2011 and 2012 elections (the previous comparable election cycle) in the 29 states the Institute has tracked since 2011. Direct contributions, meanwhile, barely increased during that period.
- The scope of outside spending remains very confined. There were almost 4,300 races in the 30 states where the Institute collects independent spending data, of which almost 2,300 races were targeted by independent spending (55 percent). Just 10 of those races accounted for 23 percent of all independent spending.
- Very few outside spenders targeted races in multiple states. The National Rifle Association (NRA) remains the big exception to the rule, having spent money on races in 18 states.
- In the 17 states the Institute has tracked since 2006, a record $301.3 million was spent independently in 2015 and 2016. Voters in six of these states saw the highest levels since 2006.
- The Nays don’t have it. More money (28 percent more) was spent supporting than opposing candidates. This is a notable departure from the previous two cycles.
Nearly half of the states continue to have inadequate disclosure laws, thereby preventing the Institute from providing a comprehensive overview of independent spending in all 50 states.2 Nonetheless, the available data point to an upward trend in independent spending. Effects of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United v. FEC ruling clearly persisted in 2015 and 2016.
For a detailed breakdown of independent spending across the country, utilize the map below. Hover your mouse over a state to obtain outside spending totals in gubernatorial, other statewide, state house/assembly, state senate, supreme court, and appellate court elections.
Figure 1: Independent Spending on State Elections, 2015 and 2016
Methodology
The Institute collected independent spending reports that individuals and committees filed with state disclosure agencies in the 30 states that provide relatively robust disclosure. These states define “independent expenditure” and/or “electioneering communication” at least as thoroughly as the federal definition, and the data was easily accessible.
The Institute collected reports in: Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
The Institute separated the states’ data into two databases: recipient and target. Recipient data was used when analyzing the money spent overall and by individual spenders. Target data was used when analyzing the money spent on specific candidates, races, or ballot measures.
If an expenditure had multiple targets, and the filer did not specify how much was attributable to each target, the target amount was left blank. In those cases, the total spent on each target will be under-reported, causing a discrepancy between recipient amounts and target amounts.
In some states, independent spending that targeted county and municipal races is reported alongside state-level expenditures. The Institute attempted to identify these local-level expenditures and remove them. The Institute also removed direct contributions that were misreported as independent expenditures. Independent expenditures that cannot be tied to a state or federal candidate or ballot measure in the Institute database—but cannot be confirmed as local—received the target type classification of “Other.”
Unfortunately, many obstacles prevent a truly comprehensive analysis of state-level independent spending. In 20 states, collecting the independent expenditure data was impossible because disclosure is either too weak or simply nonexistent. Even in states where the Institute collects data, information can be incomplete. For instance, Michigan requires independent spenders to report their expenditures, but has no disclosure regulations in place for electioneering communications. Until lawmakers improve reporting requirements, the increasingly important world of independent expenditures will remain murky across much of the country.
Independent Spending Across the Country
The explosion of independent spending on races for state office continued in 2015 and 2016 in the aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United v. FEC ruling, and many states experienced record levels of outside spending.
The Institute has collected independent spending data for 17 states since the 2005 and 2006 election cycle.3 Spenders unloaded $301.3 million in these states in 2015 and 2016, which is more than was spent in the previous two comparable election cycles combined (2007 and 2008 plus 2011 and 2012). And 6 of the 17 states experienced record levels of independent spending.
Figure 2: Independent Spending Totals in 17 States, by Election Cycle, 2005–2016
The proliferation of independent spending outpaced the rise of direct contributions by a mile, though there still remains far more of the latter. Independent spending data was available for 29 states since 2011 and 2012,4 when $206.5 million in expenditures were reported; in 2015 and 2016, independent spenders invested $399.3 million in those states—a 93 percent increase. Compare that to the $2.6 billion in direct contributions that went to candidates, parties, and ballot measure committees in 2015 and 2016—a mere 3 percent more than was contributed in 2011 and 2012.
The Spenders
Approximately 2,000 spenders were responsible for $404.1 million in independent expenditures in 2015 and 2016. The top 300 of those spenders (15 percent of the total) expended $365.4 million, which amounts to 90 percent of all outside spending during the election cycle.
The ten most-prolific independent spenders in 2015 and 2016 spent $92.3 million, slightly less than a quarter of the national total. And more than a third of the top-ten spenders’ total was spent exclusively on California elections. The California Charter Schools Association (CCSA) spent $14.4 million, the largest total nationwide. EdVoice, an education reform group and charter school ally,5 also spent $12.1 million in California, making it the country’s third-biggest spender.
Only three of the top-ten spenders invested in more than one state: the Republican Governors Association spent the second-largest total nationwide ($12.5 million), while the Republican Attorneys General Association and Republican State Leadership Committee ranked fourth ($10.1 million) and tenth ($5.8 million), respectively.
The Democratic Governors Association, Democratic Attorneys General Association, and Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee did not themselves spend independently. Instead, they contributed $21.8 million to other spenders, which is less than half the $58.4 million spent by the abovementioned Republican groups.
Of the roughly 2,000 spenders in 2015 and 2016, just 28 (only 1 percent of the total) were active in more than one state. The NRA invested in 18 state elections, the most of any spender. The National Association of Realtors spent in 11 states, second only to the NRA. Little has changed in that regard, as these two spenders “topped the list of the greatest geographical breadth” according to the Institute’s Independent Spending Overview, 2013 and 2014.6
Targets of Independent Spending
States with strong disclosure regulations require outside spenders to report the targets of their spending. The Institute’s data includes $315.9 million in independent expenditures that targeted candidates in 2015 and 2016 (78 percent of the total), while $30.9 million targeted ballot measures.
In the 20 states7 the Institute has tracked since 2009 and 2010, independent spending targeting state house/assembly seats increased every cycle, peaking at $111.7 million—a 194 percent increase since 2011 and 2012. State senate elections also attracted an impressive $63.4 million in outside spending, a 34 percent bump from 2011 and 2012. But the $24.3 million spent on gubernatorial candidates was $18.2 million less than was spent in 2011 and 2012.
Figure 3: Independent Spending by Type of Office Targeted, 2009–2016
Although outside spending continues to grow, most of it is tied up in relatively few races. Spenders targeted close to 2,300 of almost 4,300 races, but just 100 races accounted for 74 percent of the total outside spending.
The North Carolina and New Hampshire gubernatorial races were the most heavily targeted, attracting $17.1 million and $11.9 million, respectively. More than half of the total spent on all gubernatorial elections was reported in these two states.
Although independent spenders targeted 1,645 state house/assembly races in 2015 and 2016, just three contests in California accounted for almost one-fifth of the spending. In fact, 45 percent of all outside money spent on state house/assembly races targeted candidates in California, far outpacing all other states.
Expenditures supporting candidates totaled $153.7 million, which is 28 percent more than the $120.2 million spent opposing candidates. This is a notable departure from the last two cycles: in 2011 and 2012, opposition spending outpaced pro-candidate expenditures $94.8 million to $67.1 million. The gap narrowed in 2013 and 2014, but a majority of expenditures were made to oppose candidates.
The amount of money spent to support or oppose candidates varied greatly, depending on the type of office. The explosion of outside spending on state legislative elections was largely in support of candidates: $125.6 million supported candidates, while $66.8 million opposed them. But a solid majority of expenditures targeting statewide offices were to oppose candidates.
Finally, $30.9 million of independent spending targeted ballot measures in 11 states, which is only 8 percent of the national total. The incentive to spend independently on ballot measures is dampened by the Supreme Court’s 1981 decision to overturn contribution limits on ballot measure campaigns.8 Further, some states require spenders targeting ballot measures to form a ballot measure committee, thereby taking independent spending out of the equation.
A Closer Look at Outside Spending on Specific Races
A national overview of independent spending indicates that most of the money is devoted to a fairly small number of races. The races profiled below demonstrate the importance of outside spenders focusing most or all of their attention on an individual race. Outsiders will often spend far more money than the candidates raise themselves. And sometimes it is a familiar cast of characters that descend on these races.
North Carolina Governor
The 2016 race for governor of North Carolina, featuring incumbent Republican Gov. Pat McCrory and Democratic Attorney General Roy Cooper, was by far the state’s most expensive election in recent memory. Cooper raised $24.4 million, giving him an $8.8 million advantage over McCrory. Outside groups spent an additional $17.1 million, 70 percent of which targeted Cooper.
Unfortunately, due to a disclosure loophole,9 66 percent of the $11.9 million spent targeting Cooper was reported without a position; the same is true for 86 percent of the $5.2 million spent targeting McCrory.
Figure 4: Independent Spending on the North Carolina Gubernatorial Race, by Target and Position, 2016
Four spenders accounted for 88 percent of the expenditures targeting Cooper. The Republican Governors Association (RGA) spent $7.3 million, and although the position wasn’t disclosed, it was widely reported the RGA was running ads opposing Cooper.10 Outside spenders that explicitly supported Cooper include the North Carolina League of Conservation Voters ($1.4 million), Human Rights Campaign ($978,743), and Planned Parenthood Federation of America ($557,574).
Just two spenders accounted for 93 percent of the expenditures targeting McCrory. A Better NC, a nonprofit identified as an opponent of McCrory,11 spent $4.3 million on electioneering communications. Planned Parenthood spent $432,309 on anti-McCrory ads.
In the end, Cooper won by less than 1 percent of the vote.12
California State Assembly
Two of the five races that attracted the most independent spending nationwide were lower-chamber elections in California, where independent spending far outpaced direct contributions. The ongoing fight between charter school proponents and organized labor resulted in considerable outside spending throughout the state,13 but nowhere was it more prevalent than in Assembly Districts 14 and 27.
Assembly District 14
Two Democrats emerged victorious in the top-two primary for California Assembly District 14: Concord City Councilman Tim Grayson, and University of California Administrator Mae Torlakson, who is married to Tom Torlakson,14 the winner of the race that attracted the most independent spending in 2013 and 2014.15
Grayson was buoyed by a windfall of outside cash that suffocated Torlakson’s advantage in direct contributions. Expenditures supporting Grayson totaled $6.3 million. In addition, five groups spent $1.8 million opposing Torlakson. EdVoice, a pro-charter school group, was behind more than half of the pro-Grayson and anti-Torlakson expenditures.
Organized labor and other union-backed groups spent $1.3 million to support Torlakson and $1.5 million to oppose Grayson. Torlakson also raised $876,425 in direct contributions, giving her a $108,606 advantage over Grayson. But all of that wasn’t enough: despite earning the most votes in the top-two primary,16 Torlakson lost by 26 percent in the general election.17
Figure 5: Independent Spending and Campaign Contributions in California Assembly District 14 Race, 2016
Assembly District 27
Two former colleagues on the San Jose City Council, both Democrats, competed in the general election to represent California Assembly District 27: former Vice Mayor Madison Nguyen and Councilman Ash Kalra.
Nguyen and Kalra collectively raised $2.3 million split almost 50-50, while outside spenders infused $8.7 million in the race. About $5 million was spent in support of Nguyen, 93 percent of which was paid for by CCSA. Nguyen also benefited from $1.3 million spent in opposition to Kalra, which included $189,442 from CCSA, but the bulk of it was supplied by the California Association of Realtors, California Apartment Association, and Govern for California.
A plethora of groups came to the defense of Kalra, including Opportunity PAC, the California Labor Federation AFL-CIO, State Building and Construction Trades Council of California, and California Chiropractic Association. Altogether, $1.1 million was spent in support of Kalra, and $1.4 million was spent in opposition to Nguyen. It didn’t quite match the level of outside support for Nguyen, but Kalra still managed to win with 53 percent of the vote.
Figure 6: Independent Spending and Campaign Contributions in California Assembly District 27 Race, 2016
Arizona Corporation Commission
Spending on candidates for statewide offices other than gubernatorial and state supreme court seats accounted for only 8 percent of 2015 and 2016 spending, but the Arizona Corporation Commission race attracted an impressive $7.6 million, the sixth-largest total nationwide. In that race, incumbent Republicans Bob Burns and Andy Tobin were up against two Democratic challengers, Bill Mundell and Tom Chabin, as well as Boyd Dunn, another Republican. None of these candidates even cracked $300,000 in fundraising that year.
Two controversial spenders in the 2014 Corporation Commission election reemerged in the 2016 race. Pinnacle West Capital Corporation, the owner of the state’s largest electric utility, was swept up in a federal investigation of outside spending on the 2014 race.18 And SolarCity, a rooftop solar panel manufacturer and top funder of an independent expenditure committee in 2014, financed a group critical of commissioners in 2015, which raised conflict of interest questions.19
Fast forward to the 2016 election, and Pinnacle and SolarCity are behind most of the outside money in the Corporation Commission race. Pinnacle gave the AZ Coalition for Reliable Electricity (ACRE) $4.2 million, while SolarCity gave Save Our AZ Solar (SOAS) $3 million. ACRE and SOAS accounted for 95 percent of all independent spending on the election, and SolarCity also made $41,090 in independent expenditures on its own.
Figure 7: Independent Spending by Committees Funded by Pinnacle West and SolarCity to Support Arizona Corporation Commission Candidates, 2016
ACRE, SOAS, and SolarCity spending in 2016 ran the gamut. Burns benefited from $2.5 million in spending. The two other Republicans, Tobin and Dunn, were each backed by $1.4 million spent by ACRE. And $2.1 million was spent in support of the Democrat Mundell. None of these spenders focused on an individual candidate, and all expenditures were in support of the targeted candidates.
Ultimately, the two incumbents, Burns and Taylor, narrowly won reelection.20
Fazit
Independent spending on races for state office continues to flourish in the post-Citizens United era of campaign finance. Despite there being more gubernatorial races in 2013 and 2014, independent spenders managed to break that election cycle’s record in 2015 and 2016. This was accomplished by targeting far more down-ballot races, particularly state house/assembly elections, which attracted $59.6 million more than spenders had dished out in 2013 and 2014.
A very limited number of players still dominate outside spending on state elections, while contributors to candidates, parties, and ballot measure committees continue to be much more diffuse. Similarly, a very limited number of state candidates and ballot measures are the targets of independent expenditures. In the targeted races, independent spending often outpaces direct contributions by a mile. When following the money, voters should know how to track this other money trail.
- 1. The Institute started collecting independent spending data from Pennsylvania in 2015 and 2016, so that state’s outside spending was not included in the 2013 and 2014 total. However, even without Pennsylvania data, the 2015 and 2016 total still outpaces the 2013 and 2014 total by $27.7 million.
- 2. For a detailed review of outside spending disclosure practices in all 50 states, see the Institute’s report Scorecard: Essential Disclosure Requirements for Independent Spending, 2014.
- 3. The 17 states the Institute has tracked since 2006 are Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Iowa, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, and Washington.
- 4. The Institute has Florida and Pennsylvania data for only parts of the 2011-2016 time span; thus FL and PA are excluded in the link to 29 states.
- 5. Miller, Jim, “Charter schools and allies pour it on in California legislative races,” The Sacramento Bee, June 2, 2016, available from http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article81488362.html, accessed January 19, 2018.
- 6. Burgam, Calder, “Independent Spending Overview, 2013 & 2014,” National Institute on Money in State Politics, November 17, 2017, available from https://www.followthemoney.org/research/institute-reports/independent-spending-overview-2013-and-2014/, accessed January 19, 2018.
- 7. The 20 states the Institute has tracked since 2009 and 2010 are Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Iowa, Idaho, Massachusetts, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin.
- 8. Hasen, Richard L., “Rethinking the Unconstitutionality of Contribution and Expenditure Limits in Ballot Measure Campaigns,” May 27, 2005, Southern California Law Review, Vol. 78, No. 4, available from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=621321, accessed January 18, 2018.
- 9. Spenders in North Carolina do not have to disclose the position of electioneering communications that mention a candidate by name but do not suggest viewers vote for or against the candidate.
- 10. Jarvis, Craig, “GOP governors buy more ads hitting Cooper on crime lab,” The News & Observer, October 14, 2016, available from http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article108259872.html, accessed January 19, 2018.
- 11. Kotch, Alex, “A guide to the outside political groups spending on North Carolina elections,” Facing South, October 14, 2016, available from https://www.facingsouth.org/2016/10/guide-outside-political-groups-spending-north-carolina-elections, accessed January 19, 2018.
- 12. North Carolina State Board of Elections & Ethics Enforcement, “11/08/2016 Official General Election Results - Statewide,” December 13, 2016, available from http://er.ncsbe.gov/?election_dt=11/08/2016&county_id=0&office=COS&contest=0, accessed January 19, 2018.
- 13. Miller, Jim, “Charter schools and allies pour it on in California legislative races.”
- 14. Mae Torlakson for Assembly 2016, “About Me,” n.d., available from http://www.maetorlakson.com/about-mae/, accessed January 19, 2018.
- 15. Burgam, Calder, “Independent Spending Overview, 2013 & 2014.”
- 16. California Secretary of State, “Statement of Vote: June 7, 2016 Presidential Primary Election,” n.d., available from http://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/sov/2016-primary/2016-complete-sov.pdf, accessed January 19, 2018.
- 17. California Secretary of State, “Statement of Vote: November 8, 2016 General Election,” n.d., available from http://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/sov/2016-general/sov/2016-complete-sov.pdf, accessed January 19, 2018.
- 18. Randazzo, Ryan, “FBI probing ‘dark money’ groups and APS. But what are they looking for?,” The Arizona Republic, August 16, 2016, available from https://www.azcentral.com/story/money/business/energy/2016/08/15/fbi-inquiry-into-utility-regulators-aps-2014-elections-continues/88772050/, accessed January 19, 2018.
- 19. Trabish, Herman K, “SolarCity admits funding outside group targeting Arizona utility regulators,” Utility Dive, December 15, 2015, available from https://www.utilitydive.com/news/solarcity-admits-funding-outside-group-targeting-arizona-utility-regulators/410805/, accessed January 19, 2018.
- 20. Arizona Secretary of State, “State of Arizona Official Canvass: 2016 General Election,” November 29, 2016, available from http://apps.azsos.gov/election/2016/General/Official%20Signed%20State%20Canvass.pdf, accessed January 19, 2016.
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!