GOP Spent 3 Times As Much As Dems On Special Elections

There have been seven special elections in 2017 to fill vacant seats in Congress -- a senate seat in Alabama, and House seats in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Montana, Arizona, Kansas, and South Carolina. While Republicans held on to most of them, they lost a lot of support in all of them -- finishing well behind the percentage that Trump won.

Making matters worse for Republicans is the fact that they spent three times as much money on those races as the Democrats spent.

Here is how NBC News describes the spending:

Major national Republican and Democratic party groups have spent at least $48.5 million on seven special elections since last April, an NBC News analysis of FEC records finds.  

The lion's share of that spending — which includes independent and coordinated expenditures for each of the races — came from Republicans, with a total of $37 million spent in total by the Republican National Committee, the NRCC, the NRSC and the two major super PACs affiliated with the House and Senate GOP (the Congressional Leadership Fund and the Senate Leadership Fund) . 

Combined, those Republican groups spent over $20 million on two races alone: the Georgia election last June to replace now-former Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price and the Pennsylvania election to fill GOP Rep. Tim Murphy’s seat after he resigned amid scandal. Republicans narrowly won the former but lost the latter in a major upset when Democrat Conor Lamb prevailed in the GOP-friendly district. 

Republicans won the special election in Arizona but dramatically underperformed past from GOP presidential results in the district. GOP party groups invested nearly a million dollars in ads and other expenditures in that race, while national Democratic groups did not get involved.  

Democratic Party groups — including the Democratic National Committee, the DCCC, the DSCC and the House Majority PAC — spent only about $11.5 million on independent expenditures and coordinated campaign expenditures in the same seven races.  That tally also includes a group called Highway 31, a super PAC largely funded by the campaign arm of Senate Democrats which spent over $4.2 million on Democrat Doug Jones’s victory in the Alabama Senate race. 

It’s worth noting that the tallies of these expenditures — which include funding for spending on television and radio ads, mail and phone banking — don’t capture the full amount of party investment in each race, since both parties also support candidates financially in other ways not captured by the FEC records, such as transfers to state parties, polling and field staff. 

Public Would Like To Limit Campaign Cash

As we know, extraordinarily large sums of money was spent by both parties in the last election, and it wasn't just in the presidential election. Huge sums were also spent in most Senate and House races. A lot of the expenditure was done by outside groups, because the Supreme Court allowed those groups to spend unlimited amounts of money -- with much of the donations being done in secret.

One proposal being put forward to stop this huge (and many times one-sided) spending on campaigns is to provide for public funding of all federal campaigns -- with candidates of both parties getting equal (and limited) funding. This public funding would solve some of the problems, but as the charts above show, the idea really hasn't caught on big with the voting public. While a majority of Democrats would support the idea (60%), a majority of Republicans would oppose it (54%) -- and both Independents and the general public are split on the issue.

This information comes from a recent Gallup Poll (taken on June 15th and 16th of 1,015 nationwide adults -- with a three point margin of error. As you can see, the poll shows that support for public financing of elections is less than overwhelming -- and with only marginal support for it, it is unlikely we will see Congress take up this idea anytime soon.

But that does not mean the public is happy with things as they are. The poll also asked respondents if they would support limiting the amount of money congressional candidates could raise and spend -- and the support for that was overwhelming. About 79% of the general public (4 out of 5 Americans) said they supported that, while only 19% said they opposed it.

Obviously, a huge majority of Americans think unlimited campaign spending is a bad idea, and they would like to find a way to limit it. They just haven't been convinced yet that public campaign financing is the best way to do it (probably because of a fear that it would be too costly and require taxes to be raised).

While support for public financing differs among political groups, the desire to control campaign funds raised and spent cuts across all political (and other demographic) groups. Support is very high among Republicans, Democrats, and Independents -- and among both men and women, among all age groups, and in all regions of the country. Here are those numbers:

The people are not happy with the status quo, and they would like something done. Unfortunately, Congress is not likely to do anything at all. Our elected officials (especially Republicans) like all that free money from corporations and outside groups -- and none of them are interested in fair and equally-funded campaigns (which might result in their own defeat).

Presidential Campaign Spending

In the 2008 election, the two presidential candidates spent a total of $1.7 billion on their campaigns -- marking the first time in U.S. history that the major party candidates had spent more than a billion dollars. In the 2004 campaign, candidates John Kerry and George W. Bush had spent only $646.7 million combined. It had been predicted that the 2012 campaign spending would break the record set in 2008, and it looks like that will probably happen. Here are some figures for spending this year (from January through September of 2012), provided by the Federal Election Commission:

BARACK OBAMA

Obama Campaign...............$470 million
Democratic National Committee...............$255 million
Obama super-PACs...............$53.7 million

Total Spending...............$778.7 million

WILLARD MITT ROMNEY

Romney campaign...............$298 million
Republican National Committee...............$249 million
Romney super-PACs...............$156.5 million

Total Spending...............$703.5 million

TOTAL COMBINED SPENDING...............$1.4822 billion

Those are some pretty incredible numbers -- especially when you consider that it doesn't include any spending for the month of October (when both candidates will probably spend more than in any other month, trying to close the deal with undecided voters). I think that by the end of November, the total will probably easily eclipse the amount spent in 2008.

The only surprise in all of this spending is that Barack Obama has been able to match the spending of the Republican candidate. Many Democrats had feared that super-PAC spending (which so far has favored the Republicans by a 3 to 1 margin) would allow the Republicans to easily outspend the president. But the enormous amount of donations flowing into the president's campaign (where a record number of donors gave money) has allowed him to remain competitive in campaign spending.

Here are some other figures on the combined spending:

Monthly Spending...............$164,688,889

Daily Spending...............$5,489,629

Spending Per Minute...............$3,812

Spending Per Second...............$63.53

Spending per registered voter (2012)...............$10.13

Spending per registered voter (2000)...............$6.92

Spending per registered voter (1980)...............$5.03

NOTE -- The "spending per registered voter" figures for 1980 and 2000 are for the whole campaign. The 2012 figure is only through September, and will undoubtably rise above $10.13 per voter once October spending is added in to the total.)

USPS Is Campaign's Biggest Beneficiary

It looks like one big winner has already been decided in the 2012 political campaign -- the United States Postal Service. Spending on presidential campaign mailings was already over $28.9 million at the end of August. That tops the 2008 campaign's spending for the entire election cycle, which was only $27.9 million -- and you know the mailings going out to voters won't ease up any in September and October (but will probably increase).

The Postal Service had hoped to rake in about $285 million (in all races -- local, state, and federal), but it's now looking like they'll easily top that. The USPS is now hoping to top $338 million (which was its take in the 2010 election). But it could be even more. Political mail makes up about 15% of campaign spending, and the Center for Responsive Politics estimates that spending could top $2.5 billion -- which would give the USPS a windfall of about $375 million.

And it couldn't have come at a better time. The Postal Service has been having financial problems since Congress passed a bill in 2006 requiring it to donate over $5 billion a year for 10 years for future retiree health benefits. In fact, the USPS was expected to have a serious cash crunch in October. While the campaign money hasn't solved all their problems, it does look like it will take care of their immediate cash problems. And since they go into the holiday mailing season soon after the election, it looks like they will be OK until next year.

An added benefit this year is from spending by the super-PACs. While they spend a lot on TV, they like to use mailings because that lets them target the individuals and areas they are interested in reaching (without wasting money on places where the outcome is already known). And the super-PACs don't get a discount on their mailings like the campaigns do. They must pay the regular price.

I have to admit that I no longer even open any of the political mail that I get. It goes straight from the mailbox to the trash can -- regardless of which party has sent it. But I hope they go on spending that money on mailings. I have a daughter who makes her living by hauling the mail -- and she could use a little job security.

Most Expensive Campaign In History

The 2012 campaign for president is shaping up to be the most expensive campaign in the history of the United States. Some has estimated that before it is over around $3 billion will have been spent, and considering the fact that super-PACs have jumped into the spending equation on both sides, I believe it.

Large sums of money keep flowing in to both campaigns and both party coffers. The Obama campaign raised $46 million in June, while the Romney campaign raised $33 million. But when those figures are combined with the amounts raised by the parties, the numbers flip and the Republicans come out on top -- $106 million for the Republicans and $71 million for the Democrats. And those figures don't include any money raised by the super-PACs.

But while the money is rolling in, it is also being spent very quickly. In the past, a campaign didn't really start until after Labor Day, or at least until after the party national conventions had been held -- that was when the big spending started. But the rules seem to have been changed for this election. Here are some campaign spending figures for some states considered to be swing states (states that could go either way) since May 1st:

ROMNEY EXPENDITURES (Swing States)

$3,957,525..........Romney campaign (Colorado)
$701,274..........Republican National Committee (Colorado)
$3,496,245..........Romney super-PACs (Colorado)

$4,181,955..........Romney campaign (Florida)
$14,434,766..........Romney super-PACs (Florida)

$3,732,985..........Romney campaign (Iowa)
$683,915..........Republican National Committee (Iowa)
$4,672,503..........Romney super-PACs (Iowa)

$3,567,762..........Romney super-PACs (Michigan)

$1,143,045..........Romney super-PACs (Minnesota)

$2,286,260..........Romney campaign (Nevada)
$506,536..........Republican National Committee (Nevada)
$3,307,760..........Romney super-PACs (Nevada)

$588,280..........Romney campaign (New Hampshire)
$876,791..........Republican National Committee (New Hampshire)
$4,177,752..........Romney super-PACs (New Hampshire)

$315,047..........Romney super-PACs (New Mexico)

$5,570,451..........Romney campaign (North Carolina)
$1,130,907..........Republican National Committee (North Carolina)
$7,404,332..........Romney super-PACs (North Carolina)

$8,832,935..........Romney campaign (Ohio)
$1,367,136..........Republican National Committee (Ohio)
$8,557,204..........Romney super-PACs (Ohio)

$5,111,896..........Romney super-PACs (Pennsylvania)

$4,820,508..........Romney campaign (Virginia)
$1,245,495..........Republican National Committee (Virginia)
$8,037,751..........Romney super-PACs (Virginia)

$1,870,695..........Romney super-PACs (Wisconsin)

OBAMA EXPENDITURES (Swing States)

$9,569,327..........Obama campaign (Colorado)
$2,375,522..........Obama super-PACs (Colorado)

$17,530,682..........Obama campaign (Florida)
$3,335,304..........Obama super-PACs (Florida)

$8,059,202..........Obama campaign (Iowa)
$304,475..........Planned Parenthood (Iowa)

$7,244,362..........Obama campaign (Nevada)
$222,960..........Obama super-PACs (Nevada)

$5,354,283..........Obama campaign (New Hampshire)

$9,927,176..........Obama campaign (North Carolina)

$21,014,508..........Obama campaign (Ohio)
$3,303,162..........Obama super-PACs (Ohio)

$4,589,044..........Obama campaign (Pennsylvania)
$1,964,278..........Obama super-PAC (Pennsylvania)

$11,466,103..........Obama campaign (Virginia)
$2,353,025..........Obama super-PACs (Virginia)
$672,330..........Planned Parenthood (Virginia)

$48,883..........Planned Parenthood (Wisconsin)

EXPENDITURE TOTALS

TOTAL FOR ROMNEY CAMPAIGN..........$33,970,899
TOTAL FOR RNC..........$6,512,054
TOTAL FOR ROMNEY super-PACs..........$66,096,758
TOTAL EXPENDITURES FOR ROMNEY..........$106,579,711

TOTAL FOR OBAMA CAMPAIGN..........$94,754,687
TOTAL FOR DNC..........0
TOTAL FOR OBAMA super-PACs..........$13,554,251
TOTAL FOR PLANNED PARENTHOOD..........$1,025,688
TOTAL EXPENDITURES FOR OBAMA..........$109,334,626

TOTAL SWING STATE EXPENDITURES FOR BOTH..........$215,914,337

Remember, this is only the spending done in the swing states. It does not count the national advertising or anything that might have been spent in other individual states -- and the campaign hasn't even officially started yet. You can imagine what it's going to be like after the conventions, when the spending really kicks into high gear.

Buying The Nomination

We have known for a while now that a candidate can't run for president in this country unless they are rich or have lots of rich friends willing to spend freely for them. That has never been more apparent than in the current race for the Republican presidential nomination. Willard Mitt Romney (aka Wall Street Willie) has virtually assured himself of the nomination (although it will still take a few more weeks to amass the required number of delegates), but it has taken a ton of money for him to do so.

And an argument can be made that he bought the nomination, because he had at his disposal a lot more money than was available to any of his opponents. When his campaign started to slow (as it often did), he had millions more that he could spend on campaign advertising than the other candidates did, and he was not shy about spending it to swing the election back his way.

CNN did a survey of campaign spending by the end of March, and it's pretty revealing. At that time, Romney had gotten 4.1 million votes and amassed 607 delegates. To get those votes and delegates, the Romney campaign had spent about $76.6 million -- and that doesn't count what the super-PACs spent on his behalf (adding super-PAC spending pushes the total up to about $122 million). Here is what each vote and delegate cost him:

Each vote cost him about $18.68.
Each delegate cost him about $126,194.

But that's only considering the campaign spending. When the super-PAC money is figured in, the totals go up to:

Each vote cost him $29.76.
Each delegate cost him $200,988.

Those are some pretty expensive votes and delegates. But Romney wasn't the only person to pay a lot for the votes and delegates they got. While the other candidates didn't have near as much money or spend near as much, they got less votes and delegates -- meaning that their cost per vote and delegate was also very high. Here are the totals for other candidates (with super-PAC spending included in the figures in parentheses):

RICK SANTORUM
Total spending $18.7 million ($26.7 million)
Each vote cost $6.45 ($9.21)
Each delegate cost $70,833 ($101,136)

NEWT GINGRICH
Total spending $21 million ($39 million)
Each vote cost $9.55 ($17.73)
Each delegate cost $148,936 ($276,595)

Super-PAC spending was insignificant for Ron Paul, but his campaign was the least cost-effective in buying votes and delegates.

RON PAUL
Total spending $35 million
Each vote cost $31.82
Each delegate cost $486,111

Missouri GOP Caucuses Today

Today is the day that Missouri Republicans hold their caucuses. Missouri held a primary last month, but that was just sort of a "beauty contest" to see what the state's Republicans thought of the candidates -- and their were no delegates at stake. They caucuses are different, and much more important -- because they will determine which candidates get delegates and how many.

This could be another big day for Rick Santorum. That's because he took 55% of the vote in the MIssouri primary to only 25% for Romney and 12% for Paul (Gingrich was not on the ballot). But a primary and a caucus are vastly different things. Lots of people will take a few minutes to vote in a primary, but won't take the opportunity to attend a caucus where the procedures can be very time-consuming (and infuriating).

Will Gingrich steal some of the Santorum supporters from the primary? Will Paul do well, or underperform as he has been doing recently? Can Santorum pull off another big victory in Missouri? Or will the Romney supporters turn out in bigger numbers? Late tonight we'll have the answers to all of those questions -- and have a better idea of how the 52 Missouri delegates will be apportioned.

Then tomorrow (Sunday) the territory of Puerto Rico will hold their primary. I haven't seen any polls of the race there, but I have to believe Romney (aka Wall Street Willie) has a very good chance of winning. That's because Santorum tried to commit political suicide when he visited there a few days ago. He told the Puerto Ricans that they would never become a state until they learned to speak English -- not the smartest thing to say on that Spanish-speaking island.

Next Tuesday, only three days from now, the people of Illinois will get their chance to make their choice known in the GOP primary. There are 69 delegates at stake, and recent polls have shown Wall Street Willie (Romney) with a slight lead over Mr. Frothy (Santorum). It's turning out to be a battle between Chicago and the rest of Illinois. Romney is leading in Chicago, while Santorum leads in the rest of Illinois. I wouldn't count Santorum out yet, because he has been doing better than his polling shows. Here are the numbers in the latest polls:

RASMUSSEN POLL (Illinois)
Mitt Romney...............41%
Rick Santorum...............32%
Newt Gingrich...............14%
Ron Paul...............7%

ASK AMERICA POLL (Illinois)
Mitt Romney...............37%
Rick Santorum...............31%
Newt Gingrich...............14%
Ron Paul...............10%

If money was the only thing that mattered, then Wall Street Willie would be assured of winning -- because he has vastly outspent Mr. Frothy in Illinois. The Romney campaign and the Romney super-PAC have together spent over $3.6 million in Illinois so far. The Santorum campaign and the Santorum super-PAC have only spent a little over $700,000.

Can Romney buy himself another state? He was able to do so in Florida, but a 3 to 1 spending advantage in Alabama and Mississippi bought him only a third place finish. We'll have to wait until Tuesday to see what his spending in Illinois has accomplished. This graph shows what the Illinois spending looks like:

A Lot Of Money Was Spent For Very Few Votes

Last Tuesday night about 122,000 Iowa Republicans caucused to vote for their favorite in the presidential race, and to elect delegates to the regional and state conventions. Those conventions are where the real delegates will be apportioned, but it can be assumed that those delegates will roughly resemble the portions of the vote each candidate got in the caucus vote. There are 28 delegates from Iowa (or about 1 delegate for every 4350 caucus attendees).

A lot of money was spent to get the favor of those 123,000 Iowa Republicans (about 5.4% of the total registered voters in the state, which means even most Republicans didn't go to those caucuses). The top chart shows the amount of money spent just on TV ads in Iowa for each candidate -- by the campaigns themselves, by their SuperPACs, and by other groups or organizations. The breakdown by each candidate is shown in the top chart, but here is the total amount spent on TV ads by each of the three groups:

Political Tidbits

Chris Matthews on MSNBC's Hardball yesterday had an interesting "big number" of the day. The number showed the ungodly cost of a presidential campaign these days. Matthews said the New York Times had figured up what it cost Hillary Clinton to get a delegate in the 2008 campaign. The figure was $109,823 per delegate, and that was for the losing campaign. Can you imagine what the number will be in four years? Maybe it's time for us to seriously consider public financing of national campaigns.

--------------------

Al Franken is now officially the Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate in Minnesota. He received over 60% of the first ballot votes at the Minnesota Democratic Convention. He told the convention, "I will not lose my spine." That's a promise I wish a few more Democrats would make.

--------------------

It looks like maybe Bob Barr will be siphoning off some Republican votes in the coming election. Former Texas congressman and future prison inmate, Tom DeLay, was asked if Barr would get a lot of Republican votes. He said yes. He went on to say his own wife had announced she would be voting for Barr, and he was still trying to talk her out of it. McCain still has a lot of convincing to do with his right-wing party's base.

--------------------

There are many who are clamoring for an Obama-Clinton ticket. President Jimmy Carter is not one of them. He told The Guardian newspaper in London that would be "the worst mistake that could be made". Carter said, "That would just accumulate the negative aspects of both candidates" and the accumulated vulnerabilities would overshadow the campaign.