By Kellie Shirk
With political spending at record levels, democrats pulled even with republicans in soft money spending and interest groups nearly doubled their spending in the 2000 election, according to a study released by BYU on Monday.
Political science Professor David Magleby was responsible for the release of soft money spending research compiled by the Center for the Study of Elections and Democracy at BYU in Provo, Utah.
Magleby and students presented their research Monday morning at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., according to www.nationalpressclub.com.
“We are very, very proud of the work he (Magleby) has done, and the recognition he has received nationally and internationally,” said professor Kelly Patterson, political science chair.
The report, “Election Advocacy: Soft Money and Issue Advocacy in the 2000 Congressional Elections”, was funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts and edited by Magleby.
The report found that national and congressional political party committees spent nearly one-half billion dollars in soft money on the 2000 election.
Republicans spent $244 million in soft money in 1999 and 2000, while Democrats spent $243 million, according to the report.
The Democrats experienced dramatic growth, with the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee outraising all other congressional committees.
Six years ago, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee raised only $372,000 in soft money, less than 10 percent of what the National Republican Senatorial Committee raised. In 2000, they raised $63 million.
“One of the major findings in the report is how well democrats can raise and spend soft money,” Patterson said.
“It use to be the other way around and republicans were the ones who were thought to know how to raise and spend soft money,” he said.
Because of legislation being pushed by Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, and Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wisconsin, soft money has been a big issue in campaigns and elections.
“This extensive and exhaustive study of the full range of campaign communications, including undisclosed spending, is relevant to the debate over campaign finance reform,” said Magleby in a press release issued Monday.
“Soft money is clearly a major component of competitive congressional elections, and both parties now have found ways to raise large amounts of soft money,” he said.
Research also found an increase in interest group spending.
“From asbestos to prescription drugs to immigration, interest groups used advocacy to help push an issue more squarely onto the agenda, oftentimes with the intent of discrediting or damaging a candidate,” said Magleby in the press release.
Although claiming not to engage in election-related activity, 80 percent of the ads ran by Citizens for Better Medicare clearly opposed or supported a candidate, he said.
Citizens for Better Medicare was one of the biggest spending interest groups during the 2000 election, spending $65 million, according to the report.
Other top spenders included the AFL-CIO, spending $45 million; the NRA, spending $25 million; and Emily”s List, spending $20 million, according to the report.
The millions of dollars were spent in a variety of other ways as well.
An unprecedented average of 72 different pieces of direct mail and at least seven different telephone communications where used to target voters in the 2000 campaign, the research found.
It was also discovered that in the 17 sample races studied, the parties and interest groups outspent the candidates 2 to 1 in television and radio advertising, according to the report.
The research was conducted by academic teams in seventeen of the most competitive congressional elections, according to the press release.
The researchers gathered data from television and radio stations, interviews, and the Campaign Media Analysis Group, as well as other sources, the press release said.
Magleby and participating students were in Washington, D.C. and unavailable for comment at press time.
