I’m all on board with the thesis of today’s Seattle Times’s editorial lauding Judge Richard Jones ruling that last September’s unprecedented $1.5 million anti-Senn ad campaign violated WA’s public disclosure laws. Our Open Government Law was overwhelmingly approved by voters in 1972 — via citizens initiative — and the Times reminds us of one of its core tenets:
“The public’s right to know of the financing of political campaigns and lobbying and the financial affairs of elected officials and candidates far outweighs any right that these matters remain secret and private.”
But in writing their editorial, the Times repeats an unfortunate myth that has gained far too much credence in the MSM, while providing absolutely no research or analytical data to back it up:
In Washington, the television smear campaign might have backfired, because Senn won the primary handily.
Oh, that’s right… we’re living in Upside-Down World.
Get real. Senn won the primary despite of the smear campaign, not because of it, and if not for the intense onslaught of negative ads, she likely would have beaten Mark Sidran by an even larger margin. Furthermore, the ads forced Senn to empty her campaign treasury fighting a primary battle that shouldn’t have been, leaving her unable to mount an effective campaign against Rob McKenna in the general election.
People spend money on negative ads because they work, and there is no doubt that the negative ads substantially chipped away at Senn’s approval ratings — which the US Chamber of Commerce’s own internal, pre-primary polling showed to be an astonishing 3 to 1 margin among Democratic voters. Indeed, internal documents obtained by Senn’s attorneys during the court proceedings show that the US Chamber conducted extensive polling on how to drive down Senn’s positives… polling which formed the basis of their $1.5 million campaign.
To suppose that Senn’s primary and general election prospects weren’t damaged by these ads not only defies common sense, it defies decades of research and real-world experience. And let’s be honest… the US Chamber certainly would not have spent $150 million over the past five years (more on that later) running negative ads in judicial and attorney general elections across the nation, if they weren’t satisfied with the results.
While it is impossible to know for sure, it is more reasonable to speculate that McKenna rode into office on the back of an illegal, $1.5 million smear campaign, than it is to speculate that the ads backfired. It might be comforting to the Times editorial board and others to suppose that somehow, WA voters are savvier than their counterparts elsewhere, and thus immune to the pernicious influence of negative advertising. But this is a fantasy, totally unsupported by fact.
The ads intentionally misled WA voters, not just in content, but in provenance. And for that, the Times and I are in total agreement: the US Chamber, and not just its fake front organization, deserves to be punished directly for arrogantly flouting our state’s public disclosure laws.
so what….in a state where you can rack up 12 DUI convictions or be a level 3 sex offender and be set free to roam for your next victim, I say big deal…pay your fine, and move on, business as usual in this state…
You forgot about the annual “Democratic Party” violation of campaign disclosure laws.
Of course you’re only interested in the truth….
Idiots @ 1, 2…
Can you back either of those statements up? Facts from real sources (no righty propaganda please). Frankly, as a voter you should be appalled. If you don’t like the law just go get drunk and drive. I don’t think you will do well after a couple DUI’s.
C’mon Goldy….do you honestly think Senn had a chance (with all her problems) against McKenna? Senn was a known quantity statewide (and it was a poor quantity) while McKenna, for most outside King County, was unknown, which helped him against Senn.
When you have The Stranger endorsing Mark Sidran over Senn, that says a lot about Senn, doesn’t it?
From The Stranger:
“The truth is, Sidran was the only Democrat who stood a chance of beating evil Republican charmer Rob McKenna. But Democratic voters statewide–most of whom don’t have the luxury of reading The Stranger’s endorsements–favored Deborah Senn, Sidran’s challenger in the primary, easily the most unelectable woman in state politics. (Although Gregoire is a close second.) While Sidran actually walloped Senn in The Stranger’s turf, King County, getting 55 percent of the vote, Senn–a lefty drip of a politician–won 50.6 percent statewide.
In our Sidran endorsement, we cautioned: “We believe that Senn [will] be blown out of the water in the general election by Rob McKenna.” We were right. Senn only got 43 percent in the general election. It’s regretful that The Stranger isn’t distributed statewide. If it were, we might not be facing four years under a Republican attorney general.”
Jon the Tool asks:
do you honestly think Senn had a chance
In all probability a better chance yes, absent the attack ads from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Keep on apologizing for big money in politics, Jon.
The Stranger is a great rag but hardly representative of the majority of Washington Voters (but damn they are funny!!!!). Their endorsement of Sidran was irrelevant in most respects. The 1.5 Million smear campaign from the US Chamber is relevant. Especially in the primary. If Sidran benefitted from this (and I have no stats to that effect but it appears he did) then the strategy worked.
The Stranger’s post election “told you so” really doesn’t add up.
Senn was vilified by the insurance as Commissioner, but well thought of as a consumer advocate.
As much as I didn’t like her as Commish…I thought she would be a great A.G. Tough, tough, tough…on everybody. She IS a TOUGH cookie. AAAAND…as much as I didn’t like her as Commish, I thought she was savaged unfairly by an organization whose members were SCARED shitless she’d put the ethical screws to them if she got elected. Boy oh Boy…we don’t want a consumer advocate in as A.G. No Siree! Can’t happen. Wouldn’t be prudent.
For the Clueless @ 5: “In all probability a better chance yes, absent the attack ads from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Keep on apologizing for big money in politics, Jon.”
Using your logic, then Chris Vance has a shot of beating Maria Cantwell if the Republicans just spend enough money.
I don’t like big money in politics; but it’s not my money to spend (and therefore dictate where to spend) and as long as I know who is giving money to who, that’s more important.
Jimmynap @ 6:“If Sidran benefitted from this (and I have no stats to that effect but it appears he did) then the strategy worked.”
Considering Sidran lost, then I’d say it didn’t.
Of course negative attack ads work. HTF do you think Bush won?
Benefitted = gained primary votes in this context. Don’t get snippy :)
Oh, Chris Vance vs. Cantwell. I don’t think Vance could keep himself from offending too many people.
But that would be like Rove running for Pres. I don’t think he could pull it off.
Jimmynap @ 10: “Benefitted = gained primary votes in this context. Don’t get snippy”
Okay, okay, I was snippy, sorry. :) But, the ads didn’t make the difference the primary, so how could one say they did in the general?
From the editorial:
In Washington, the television smear campaign might have backfired, because Senn won the primary handily.
By what stretch of the imagination is a margin of 9786 votes out of 722070 “winning handily”? Deborah beat Sidran by just 1.35% (50.67% to 49.32%). The 2004 primary results are here.
Sure, it’s a landslide next to Gregoire’s victory for governor, but I’d say Frank Blethen’s editorial writers have redefined the word “handily”.
jimmynap @ 3
show some sympathy for those suffering voter apathy. Exactly when should I be appalled, cuz in the last 20yrs, from WHPPS to the last election, quite frankly my appalled gland is a bit over used. Thankfully my eyesight doesn’t seem to be affected, I can see that I won’t change your mind, so I will settle for the law….next initiative please…
Berendt and thee olympian on Dem party fines…
Moderator: The Democratic Party faces a potential penalty of $100,000, imposed by the Public Disclosure Commission, for failing to fully disclose a number of its financial transactions related to the 2004 campaign cycle. Cara of Olympia asks: “In the 2000 election the state democratic party was fined by the Public Disclosure Commission for violations in reporting campaign contributions & expeditures; it again was fined in the 2004 election. Given that Gregoire was Attorney General in 2000, do you see a conflict of interest? And do you assume responsibility for the problem and the task of fixing it?”
Berendt: The buck stops here. I am ultimately responsible for insuring that this is done correctly. The issues that we’re facing this year are two things. One was that the debts after the election over the bills we owed were not fully disclosed. What was fully disclused was all of our contributions to candidates and all of the contributions we received. We requested from the PDC money that transferred from the state account to the federal account and that permission was granted. The contributions that were made for that were always recorded on the federal account. Essentially all contributions to us were fully disclosed and all contributions to candidates were fully disclosed.
Moderator: Do you expect to pay the $200,000 penalty?
Paul Berendt: There have been no discussions with the PDC about that whatsoever. We have certainly increased compliance resources many times over. When we had the problem before (in 2000), I made the decision that I was going to take full responsibility for that occurrence. I made sure all of the staff was trained, including the comptroller, who had increased training. In this instance we were monitoring it closely, but some information didn’t come to me. But when it did we took immediate action to correct it.
righton@16–
How dare you rain on Goldy’s Gay Pride Parade!!
Jon @ 13… I believe they may have as the intent was to erode support. Once the erosion is done voters can become apathetic. Another NeoCon strategy. Over now but at least there was some investigation into the funding.
Thomas @ 15… sorry about the apathy. Hope you are not a victom of above. I am not sure what you would want to change my mind about. I remember WPPSS. Heck I remember what happened to my home town when all that went down. I was a little younger so it would be difficult for me to follow the accountability trail. Where ever that would lead I would have some strong words. Fortunately I split the Tri-Cities (and the State) before I had to watch the fallout.
The last election?? Federal or State. Both were quite amazing and some serious lessons to be learned there.
Off Topic: Has anyone read what Hitchens has been saying about Sheehan?? http://www.slate.com/id/2124500
He has some points but damn he is still turning a blind eye to the fact that this war was built on a lie. Americans deserve better eh?
15
I sympathize, Thomas. I find it appalling that Dubya was able to steal 2 presidential elections in a row.
Since the Rightys are mudslinging today, I think I’ll mention that Ohio’s Republican governor was charged today on four counts of accepting illegal gifts (okay, some folks call it bribery).
RR @ 20
That wouldn’t be Taft would it? Or, woooould it!
The real question is who in their right mind knowing D. Senn’s record would vote for her.
She has to be the singularly worst public official the State has ever seen. Even worse that Bill Huennekens.
Roger Rabbit @ 20
probably as much as I was when the Senate let Slick Willy off, after he knowing perjured himself in front of a Grand Jury.
we can play tit for tat…my parties older than yours..lol
For the Clueless
Talk to me about:
George Soros
Maria Cantwell
Jon Corzine
Talk to me about why average contribution to:
Republicans is under $100
Democrats is over $1000
Talk to me about why Democrats rely on forced contributions from union members.
JC Bob @24
It is simple: They know better than you, so stop trying to be “da man”…
Goldy,
In general, all your analysis is true. However, there is usually an exception to the rule. Senn had been receiving bad press prior to the attack ads on her record. The substance of the ads smeared her based on her record. Yet the scandal wasn’t that they misportrayed her record. It was that they hid their identity. Senn aptly seized the opportunity to criticize the hidden identity of the sponsor. That gave her a podium and revitalized her campaign.
The night Sidran lost, he was the first to publicly advance the theory that Senn benefitted from the hit advertisements, and as much admitted that his campaign couldn’t buy enough media time to keep up with Senn’s primetime denouncements of the hit ads.
This is the exception to the rule that hit ads always hurt.
Liking it.
24
Awfully hard for me to believe the average donation to the Democrats is over $1000. But let’s say your number is right. Let’s examine what an “average” is. Let’s say 1 guy gives the Democrats $1,000,000 and 1,000 people give the Democrats $10. The “average” donation is $1,009 but the “median” donation is $10. So your statistic is bullshit.
RR @ 24
“Awfully hard for me to believe the average donation to the Democrats is over $1000. But let’s say your number is right. Let’s examine what an “average” is. Let’s say 1 guy gives the Democrats $1,000,000 and 1,000 people give the Democrats $10. The “average” donation is $1,009 but the “median” donation is $10. So your statistic is bullsh*t.”
Using your example for Dems, if one person gives the Reps $1,000,000 it would take 300,000 people giving $10 to bring the average down to $13. Wouldn’t this indicate more broad based support among small contributors for the Republicans than the Democrats?
Here’s an article from the Washington Post that would confirm that Republicans have been recieving more support from smaller contributors than the Democrats, at least in the 2002 election cycle.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....-2003Jun27
“A report released yesterday by the Center for Responsive Politics, a watchdog group, found that, contrary to common perceptions, Republicans have a big advantage over Democrats in donations from small donors, while Democrats are king among only the biggest.
The study, analyzing donations during the 2002 campaign cycle, found that those little guys giving less than $200 to federal candidates, parties or leadership political action committees contributed 64 percent of their money to Republicans. By contrast, those fat cats giving $1 million or more contributed a lopsided 92 percent to Democrats. The only group favoring Democrats, in fact, were contributors giving more than $100,000.”
The Center for Responsive Poltics is hardly a part of the “GOP Propaganda Machine”.
From the WA Times 2002 article paraphrased by Rush:
“Those giving $200 to $999: GOP $68 million; Democrats $44 million. Those giving $1,000 to $9,999: GOP $317 million; Democrats $307 million. The “fabulously wealthy” donors of $10,000+ gave $111 million to the GOP – a whopping $29 million less than the $140 million they lavished on the Democrats! Among those who gave $100,000+, the Democrats raised $72 million – more than double the $34 million the GOP took.
The fact is that in the 2002 election cycle, those who gave a million dollars or more poured $36 million into the Democrat coffers, and a paltry $3 million into the pockets of the GOP. Again: millionaire donations went Democrat by a 12:1 margin! The two parties took in overall – GOP: $384 million; Democrats: $350 million.” Hollywood gives the big bucks to the d u m m o c r a p s!!!”