Unprecedented spending in an unprecedented year
Wednesday, Nov 2, 2016 - Posted by Rich Miller
* WBEZ…
Seth Lewis, a Republican who has benefited from Rauner’s generosity, is running for the state Senate in Chicago’s western suburbs, including Villa Park and Bartlett. He has raised $1.7 million in the last three months. […]
Lewis, who is challenging Democratic incumbent Tom Cullerton, D-Villa Park, is spending much of this money on sending mailers to voters and airing expensive TV ads.
“Has (the money) had an impact? Absolutely,” Lewis said. “But in my particular case, I think it’s just been able to keep us even with our opponent.”
Lewis claims all that money from Rauner is helping Republicans stay even with the Democrats’ fundraising. Over the last three months, Cullerton raised about $1.5 million from labor unions, attorneys — traditional Democratic funders — along with Democratic leaders.
Cullerton said it’s the Democrats who are trying to keep up with the Republicans. He won the Senate seat four years ago with a fraction of the cash he’s spent this year.
“With the amount of money the governor has put in, I don’t know if anybody can keep up with the kind of money that he’s got and the kind of money he’s moving around the state,” Cullerton said.
Madigan! Rauner!
Whatevs.
C’mon, they’re both doing fine on the money end.
If you back up another month, you’ll see Lewis has raised $2.1 million while Cullerton has pulled in about $1.77 million.
* And speaking of money, the Tribune has a much better piece today on spending than you’ll normally find in a mainstream media outlet. Click here to read it. And click here for some very handy charts that show money raised by each legislative candidate.
One quote from the story…
Unions and trial lawyers largely are funding Madigan’s troops, while Rauner and wealthy allies are bankrolling the Republican efforts. One longtime Illinois campaign finance expert questions whether the influx of all that campaign cash is good for either side or for the state’s politics.
“If having someone who is, or appears to be, a wholly owned subsidiary of the speaker is bad for representative democracy and local control, then replacing them with someone who is, or appears to be, a wholly owned subsidiary of the governor — I don’t think that gets us any closer to democracy and local control,” said Kent Redfield, emeritus professor of political science at the University of Illinois at Springfield.
“If we were keeping score and asking if it is now a more balanced fight, that begs the real question of whether this is how we really ought to be electing people and making decisions and representing local legislative districts and communities. That’s the big picture part of it. It’s not healthy for the political system on either side,” he added.
Yeah, well, this is nothing compared to what will likely happen in 2018.
* And this is from the Crain’s morning roundup…
Total spending has topped $2 million in 16 state legislative races this year, including a dozen that have gone above $3 million and six that have surpassed $4 million through Oct. 31, the Chicago Tribune reports.
Two years ago, just one Illinois Senate race topped $4 million while one House contest exceeded $2 million, a sign of how the current battle has intensified between Rauner and Democrats, especially House Speaker Michael Madigan.
- thechampaignlife - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 10:22 am:
Sure would be nice if you had to be a resident of a district to contribute to a race in that district, or at least live within 20 miles. All the money flowing between candidates and between candidates and parties is not super helpful either, although that would be trickier to limit.
- Hamlet's Ghost - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 10:27 am:
== One longtime Illinois campaign finance expert questions whether the influx of all that campaign cash is good for either side or for the state’s politics. ==
Thanks to Citizens United, this very good question is entirely academic.
- ANONIME - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 10:33 am:
Too bad they can’t just use that money to get the state’s back bill paid. That would be a much better use of the money than trying to see who can find the most dirt on their opponent
- Anon221 - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 10:40 am:
Once the dust (and dirt) of the General dies down (we can only hope), the spotlight may very well turn toward Illinois because of this unprecedented state and local spending. The Dems have done well to have a broad base of funders, large and small. But, the Repubs going 90% plus in on 4-5 individuals will draw focus. Durkin may like the money now, but will he and Radogno relish being the possibly sacrificial troops to defend Rauner and Co. when WaPo, the NY Times, CNN, Frontline, and others come to call??? May all be legal, but the stink before it becomes “compost” reeks to high heaven.
- Amalia - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 10:47 am:
The Tribune chart is worth buying the actual paper today. And amidst all the scorecard information are some hilarious bits knowing some of these races.
“…against a guy named Nixon. Republicans now have someone with a better ballot name, at least,…” and “….from Marwig, a former part owner of a local tea beverage company.”
- Last Bull Moose - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 10:50 am:
I think the high level of expenditures is here to stay. Campaigns need to adjust. This year they seem to have poured more money into the usual vehicles. That is like doubling the size of a house by making all the rooms bigger.
I want to go to multi-member districts so the winners have to campaign FOR something. Not just against one person.
- Roman - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 11:26 am:
Is there some spending threshold an individual legislative campaign can reach at which point any additional money has little or no effect?
There are limits to how much mail you can send. There are only so many competent staffers you can hire. And when you’re running ads on Chicago broadcast television, about half the time the piece runs, literally no one who lives in the district is watching.
- Whatever - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 11:41 am:
==Thanks to Citizens United, this very good question is entirely academic. ==
Citizens United held only that the law cannot limit corporate contributions simply because they are contributions. It said nothing about nondiscriminatory limitations. And the biggest chunk of the new money seems to be coming from individuals. But at least you didn’t hang all the blame on the Speaker or the Governor.
- Plutocrat03 - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 11:44 am:
Happy days are here again for tv, radio outlets, paper media and printers.
- A guy - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 11:45 am:
===The Dems have done well to have a broad base of funders, large and small. ===
Broad base??? They all have one thing in common. Broad benefits from their contributions from the public treasury. Eek man.
- Anon221 - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 12:15 pm:
A guy- If you can trace 90% of the monies donated in the past two years directly back to 4-5 INDIVIDUALS for the ILGOP, I ask, can you do the same for the donations to the IL Dems? I am not being confrontational or snarky. Follow the money trail.
- A guy - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 1:21 pm:
Mr/Ms Anon, Trade Unions, Public Service Unions, Utilities, and a handful of associations are not that far removed from the shortlist on the GOP side. There are a few select very wealthy Dems too. I accept your premise that there are more contributing units to the Dems. I don’t accept this “wide group of diversity” argument. Until those handful of GOP tycoons stepped up, we got stomped by special interest money cycle after cycle. It’s a little hypocritical (not by you!) for that party to now complain and whine. They provided the template. With serious respect…AG
- Anon - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 1:33 pm:
===Yeah, well, this is nothing compared to what will likely happen in 2018.===
I think whether or not we’ll see this kind of activity in 2018 may be very dependent on how successful it is in 2016. I would imagine that it would be quite difficult to throw tens of millions of dollars down the toilet every couple of years.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 1:35 pm:
===I would imagine that it would be quite difficult to throw tens of millions of dollars down the toilet every couple of years. ===
For you, yes. Of course. But for someone like Griffin? Pocket change.
- Anon221 - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 2:01 pm:
A guy- For me the most important take away of all of this is how MONEY is overshadowing the really important stuff. It’s become the political equivalent of Draft Kings or Fan Duel. People lose sight of people- at all levels. Competiveness should not outplay compassion.
- Team Sleep - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 2:05 pm:
1:33 - as I noted in the post about the “498 mentions about Madigan” section I think the money will flow freely if the HRO makes gains. If the HRO can win 5+ seats - which could happen given the downstate trends - then Rauner and Company will certainly smell blood and go all in. This is especially likely if HRC becomes President and deals with the typical first midterm lull.
- Anon - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 2:19 pm:
===But for someone like Griffin? Pocket change.===
I get that in terms of their overall wealth of the three major donors to the GOP that it is pocket change, but there’s a big difference between buying into a plan that has been sold to you as an effective way to spend the money to obtain the desired results and being asked to pony up several million dollars to the folks that you just gave several million dollars to that didn’t deliver the results they desire.
Being richer than Croesus doesn’t mean you don’t demand results or accountability. A lot of money has been “invested” in the GOP this year and at least in my opinion they could have spent some of those funds a bit more wisely and in a much more targeted fashion. Just a little bit more quality over quantity.
- Team Sleep - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 2:37 pm:
2:19 - but like R & D or a mega bucks marketing campaign the major players donating this year will have no idea if it works until next Wednesday morning. How many movies have cost a fortune and bomb? Conversely, how many movies cost a lot and make the producers and studios filthy rich? How many free agent signings flame out and cost their teams years of anguish? On the flipside, how many free agent signings pan out and make their teams contenders or champs? This is a big risk. It paid off for Rauner in 2014, and if it pays off this year then Rauner, Griffin, et al will do this again. If not then maybe Rauner and Griffin will only focus on Rauner’s reelection.
I also wonder how Biss’s donors will think or react if the LIFT ads are a failure. They are pumping a ton of cash into that venture and it could be a huge disaster. Again - we will know in a week.
- Anonymouth - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 2:38 pm:
=== I think whether or not we’ll see this kind of activity in 2018 may be very dependent on how successful it is in 2016. ===
It also depends on how you define success.
- Team Sleep - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 2:52 pm:
2:38 - in the post I referenced my contention is that the HRO could win 5+ seats and lay the foundations for others they lose relatively closely. HRO playing heavily in 10 current Dem districts - not including the 114th race involving Mr. Romanik - and that would be a 50% success rate. It could happen, and after some of Rich’s recent reporting that is not a pipe dream. And the Senate GOP is playing heavily in 5 districts - not including Sullivan’s open seat - so they could conceivably climb out of the super minority.
- Anonymouth - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 3:00 pm:
I agree that if HRO can pick up 5 seats this year that would be a success.
- walker - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 4:40 pm:
The 5 or more seats seems like a pretty good benchmark for GOP success in the House.