Money and TV Speak

Bethany Leach

Both in the 1996 and 2000 elections, there has been a common theme: campaign contributions mean victory.

There now exists a law that limits money contributions to political candidates to a few hundred dollars per election. However, there is no limit to the number of independent expenditures, or campaign gifts, such as direct mail pieces, TV advertising and yard signs, that a political candidate can accept.

The Police Union, Save Our Planet Group, and the Teacher’s Union were three of the main contributors to political campaigns this year, and it seems that their contributions have enabled Adams, McDonald, and Peterson to win. While there is no definitive proof that independent expenditures win elections, it’s clear that their TV advertising has a strong link to political victory.

More than 50 percent of the total independent expenditures by the three interest groups was spend on TV advertising. Peterson, who received more than $11 million in the last two elections, used more than half of it on TV advertising. Similarly, McDonalds was gifted $9 million and used half of it on TV commercials. And Adams used $5 million of the $8 million he was given for television.

The losing candidates, Johnson, Smith, and Thurston, received $2.1, $1.7, and $3.6 million, respectively. Relatively little of their money was spent on TV advertising because the total expenditures combined among the three losing candidates added up to less than what Peterson received.

Suffice it to say the Save Our Planet Group, which spent almost $20 million in independent expenditures, knows the power money can have over an election. The three candidates that the interest group supported the strongest this year were the three candidates who won. There is no explanation, though, for having doubled the amount spent on independent expenditures between 1996 and 2000.

It can be concluded, though, that in the political realm, money and TV advertising speak.