![]() ![]() ![]() Non-disclosing groups gave more than $176 million to super PACs and hybrid PACs during the 2018 election cycle. Partially-disclosing groups reported more than $391 million to the FEC in 2018 election spending, a record-breaking election cycle for spending by groups that “only disclose some of their donors or dark money sources. These outside spending figures do not take into account so-called “issue ads,” political ads which do not explicitly advocate for or against a candidate and do not require groups to disclose their ad spending to the FEC unless the ads are run within 60 days of the general election or 30 days of the primary election.ĭark money groups use ongoing issues - such as the battle over Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh - as a way to attack or prop up candidates without explicitly advocating for or against them.Īdditionally, there’s evidence dark money is being reorganized and restructured. On its face, direct dark money spending in elections is down overall, but total FEC-reported spending by non-disclosing groups doesn’t tell the whole story. Chamber of Commerce, reported just under $12 million in outside spending this cycle, way down from the $35 million it spent in 2014. The former dark money leader, the conservative U.S. Majority Forward, a dark money nonprofit connected to current and former Democratic Senate leaders, led the way with $46 million in outside spending reported to the FEC. It’s a stark departure from 2014, when non-disclosing conservative groups outspent liberal ones $140 million to $39 million. Undisclosed “dark money” spending from liberal groups totaled $81 million, compared to just $43 million for their conservative counterparts. “Elections may be more expensive, but in 2018 we saw that candidates are able to convert small dollars into wins, and we suspect that this trend will continue into the presidential cycle.”ĭemocrats go “dark,” Republicans restructure “Although a small group of wealthy individuals continue to drive the cost of elections ever higher by donating millions to outside groups, candidates are countering their influence by relying more and more on small donations” said Sarah Bryner, research director at the Center for Responsive Politics. The bulk of skyrocketing small donor contributions went to candidates, who brought in $498 million from small contributions over the $196 million total in 2014. Small individual contributions totaled more than $1 billion, up from $641 million in 2014. That’s not to say small donors - the most coveted source of funding for any candidate - didn’t make an impact. Gil Cisneros (D-Calif.) all spent more than $9 million of their own money and won. Self-funders don’t have the most successful track record, but Rep. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) poured in more than $63 million of his own money to win his Senate race. It was a banner year of sorts for wealthy self-funders, too. Twelve individuals (three Democrats and nine Republicans) gave more than $1 million to powerful joint fundraising committees in the 2018 cycle. ![]() FEC - the 2014 Supreme Court decision that removed an aggregate limit on contributions an individual can make over a two-year period - was especially evident in 2018. Able to give unlimited dollars to super PACs, Sheldon and Miriam Adelson gave more than $123 million to help Republicans while Michael Bloomberg threw in $90 million to help Democrats. The 10 most generous megadonors combined to pour $436 million into the election, displaying the widespread influence of wealthy individuals in the post-Citizens United era. Large individual contributions, defined by the FEC as $200 or more, accounted for $2.9 billion of the $4 billion in individual contributions flowing to candidates, outside groups, party committees and 527 committees. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |