Montana Senate Race: Tester and Rehberg both raise $1.2 Million

Less than an hour apart, the Tester and Rehberg campaigns released their first quarter fundraising numbers for 2012. Both had impressive hauls and both raised essentially the same amount: $1.2 million. Tester raised about $9000 more than Rehberg to be exact. Senator Tester continues his string of $1 million dollar plus quarters, and Congressman Rehberg had his best quarter since he entered the race and transferred money from his House campaign account. More importantly, he nearly doubled his fundraising from the final quarter of 2011 when he only raised less than $660,000.

Hmmm....haven't I been saying this is going to be a costly election?

NRSC makes major early ad buys for November election - The Hill's Ballot Box

NRSC makes major early ad buys for November election - The Hill's Ballot Box

I picked up this article from Senator Tester's Facebook feed. Why is this important? Three reasons.

 1. It demonstrates how hard it will be to buy time in the fall with all the added interest group money coming into the state.The NRSC is tipping its hand early, which suggests that the need to lock up that time outweighs the risk of letting the candidates and the DSCC know what they're doing.

2. It will be harder for the candidates--especially those down ballot--to buy media time close to the election.

3. The amount the NRSC is committing to this race is enormous given the cost of advertising in Montana. In 2006, according to MSU-Billings political science professor Craig Wilson's chapter on the Tester-Burns race, the DSCC spent $1.9 million on television ads in support of Tester's bid to unseat Senator Conrad Burns. The NRSC that same year spent $608,000 on TV supporting Senator Burns' reelection bid. The volume of money of money being spent by the Republicans is indicative of how important they view this race to gaining the Senate majority. Records in Montana will be broken without a doubt.

If there's a big difference between the 2006 and 2012 Senate races, it's this: the sheer volume of money flooding into Montana and its unprecedented scale.

Two additional Ads for Tester Up Today

Senator Tester has launched two new television advertisements focusing on his work for veterans. This is a key group for Senator Tester--a group for which he's worked hard over the past five years, and this is key example of his efforts to expand his reelection constituency after his tight win in 2006. Here are the ads:







This first ad features Carla Lott, a Native American advocate for veterans. I'm fairly certain I saw her at a Veteran's Roundtable this past summer. This is what we call a testimonial advertisement. The great strength of this ad is you are hearing from an actual person who has been helped by Senator Tester and his work.

The second ad is from a town hall meeting about veteran's issues. Again, this highlights the work Senator Tester has done for veterans, and provides a variety of endorsements from newspapers testifying to his work.

Veterans are key group for Senator Tester, so I'm not surprised that these issues would be highlighted in positive spots immediately following Senator Tester's "Combine" spot emphasizing his rural roots and work as an active farmer. Also note that these ads are much more substantive in terms of issues than his first spot. This is ad buy is about the same amount as the first buy, in the $60,000 range.

Baucus, a Poll, and High on the Hog--Oh my!

Lots of developments in Montana in the past 48 hours.

First, Senator Max Baucus recently announced that he's running for re-election in 2014 and has purchased $25,000 in radio ads to be aired...wait...THIS WEEK in several markets throughout the state. Read the story here. More on this below.

Second, a new poll is out in the Montana Race that is actually taking place this year shows...wait...A Rehberg lead within the margin of error. Again, the races is: too close to call. Here's that Rasmussen poll (with all the qualifiers from my previous posts about Rasmussen).

Third, AP had an article in Montana papers two days ago slamming both Senator Tester and Congressman Rehberg for living "high on the hog" by staying in fancy hotels and eating expensive meals, which are picked up by their campaign accounts. Read that piece here.

Whew! Where to start? I think we'll start with Montana's senior senator, Max Baucus. According to news accounts, the ad stresses his role in the payroll tax extension and features a testimonial from a prominent Republican businessman.

In an earlier post, I asked whether the Tester television ads were put up too early--and came to the conclusion that they were not. Well, I can certainly say that if Senator Baucus is putting up radio ads in 2012 for an election in 2014, that can only signal trouble. Not that it is a secret...Senator Baucus' approval ratings have been on downward slide since 2008. Last year's Billings Gazette poll found his approval rating at only 38 percent, certainly not encouraging for someone hoping to get reelected. Clearly, the radio ad is meant to stem that downward spiral and help Montanans remember why they've elected him for so long: he has political clout, seniority, and is often the pivotal voter in the Senate. His central position politically is only accentuated by Nebraska Democratic Senator Ben Nelson's impending retirement. Even if Democrats lose the majority, Republicans will not gain a filibuster proof majority--and will be looking to cut deals with conservative Democrats like Baucus.

All of that said, I'm shocked--shocked--that Senator Baucus would insert his reelection into the conversation during an already competitive Senate election. I'm not sure how this benefits Senator Tester--it merely detracts from his media message and his efforts. I'm puzzling through this one and coming up empty.

On the Tester-Rehberg poll, there's not much to be said. The race is close--we already knew that. Perhaps the one thing worth mentioning is this is the first poll taken after the emergence of two Libertarian candidates. And, interestingly, these candidates poll about 6 percent of the vote. Of course, with a margin of error at 4.5 percent, support for a third party candidate could be as low as 1.5 percent or as high as 10.5 percent. But note that only THREE percent of voters did not express a clear choice. Lots of money will be spent trying to help those voters figure things out (and lots of money will be spent making sure those who have already made up their minds get out and vote). Another Montana blogger, James Conner, crunched the numbers in this year's Tester-Rehberg polling and compared them to the Burns-Tester race in 2006. He concludes that the patterns might suggest some concern about Senator Tester's reelection. You can read his analysis here.

Finally, the AP piece on campaign expenditures and reimbursements. The piece essential puts a pox on both Republican and Democratic houses, suggesting neither candidate is the frugal, average guy they purport to be. I guess, as an observer of politics, my reaction was "meh". When individuals travel on business, they get reimbursed for their travel and meals. What's all the fuss about? If a candidate travels on campaign business, they get their expenses reimbursed. Sometimes some expensive meals might happen at a fundraiser. Sometimes the fundraiser is held at a nice hotel to encourage big donors, and you have to pay a large amount for a room in a hotel that is in a good location.

The fuss is, of course, is that both Rehberg and Tester represent Montana. And Montana is a poor state that is not too kind about others making too much money or looking like they have gotten too far ahead of the Joneses. This is especially true when it seems that public figures are profiting from their public position. In another state, this type of story might never have been noticed or even written. But in a state--and in a race--where that "one of us" connection is so important and a contestable point between the candidates, this article seems to suggest that neither Senator Tester nor Congressman Rehberg are as "one of us" as they would have us believe.

Is that a problem? Politically, it might be. While it doesn't bother me much that a member of Congress might have a nice dinner at fundraiser once in a while or stay at a nice hotel, I can see why it might upset folks who can barely make ends meet. And even if though these bills and reimbursements are standard operating procedure in campaigns (and, from my limited experience, they are), one thing that both candidates might do to avoid negative press in the future is to apply the government travel and meals reimbursement limits to their campaign travel, too. At the very least, this would avoid a story like the one that appeared in the paper this morning, which draws attention away from their core themes and messages. In the end, however, the story serves to increase the cynicism of voters and as someone who studies Congress, I'm not sure we need to be doing much of that right now.

Senator Tester's Ad: Not Terribly Early

In yesterday's post, I speculated about the timing of Senator Tester's first campaign ad. Was it too early? Too late?

My colleagues at the Wesleyan Media Project--run by Erika Fowler, Mike Franz, and Travis Ridout (all Wisconsin grads, I might add)--provided some data to help answer that question. In 2010, the first election of the post-Citizens United era, four senators running for reelection faced competitive races: Senators Feingold, Reid, Murray, and Bennet. Feingold lost reelection, and the other three won with less than 53% of the vote. Here's when each launched their first ad:

Bennet: March 17

Feingold: April 27

Reid: April 30

Murray: July 28

Tester's first ad launched on March 26. I'd say given that he's a first-term senator running for reelection, his situation is most analogous to Bennet's--who was appointed to a vacant seat and running his first campaign. Murray and Feingold were both elected in 1992, Reid was elected in 1986--so well-established reputations. Four data points are not much to draw any firm conclusions, but it would seem that Tester's ad launch is not particularly early given the competitive nature of the seat and the fact that he's running for his second term. It seems just right.

Tester Up First: Tester Campaign Launches its First Ad

This morning, Montana's airwaves--which have already been inundated by advertising sponsored by outside groups variously attacking Senator Tester or Congressman Rehberg--received yet another campaign ad. This one, however, is different. First, it's actually sponsored by one of the candidates: Senator Tester. Second, it is a positive ad. Watch it below.




A couple of quick points. First, campaigns generally begin with positive, bio spots introducing (or re-introducing as is the case here) the candidate. After some time making people feel good about the candidate, campaigns move into the argument phase, where the candidate makes arguments about why they are the best choice and the opponent is the worst choice. Finally, in the closing weeks, we'll probably see some talking head ads with the candidate making their final pitch and asking citizens for their vote. As expected, the Tester campaign is proceeding as one might expect and anticipate.

Second, according to Mike Dennison's article in the Billings Gazette this morning (read here), the buy is $60,000. One of my sources tells me the buy is actually $53,000--and not a statewide buy at 1,000 Gross Ratings Points as I initially wrote. This buy is only 500 GRP in Billings, and 250 in other markets. So, the buy is not as big and extensive as I had been led to believe. Of course, one might argue that to have an effect--given the Internet and other ways to push ads--that the initial buy might not have to be as great.

Third, the positive ad is long on biography and short on issues. Again, not unusual. That's not what this ad is really aiming to do. It is designed to make Montanans remember why they like Tester: He's a farmer who works his own fields, he's friendly, and he could be your neighbor. Negative ads, for all their alleged faults, are the ads which focus more on issue based concerns. The ad is not devoid of issue content, but it is general and vague.

Finally, it is hard to say whether this buy is early or not. Given the changes in campaign finance and the fact that outside groups have been spending money since April of last year--and much of that has been negative--I'm led to believe that it is surprising that ads haven't gone up BEFORE now. Citizens United did change the nature of the campaign game, so many of us are learning as we go. The next question is: How long will we stay in the first advertising phase before moving into the argument phase?

Hidden Returns on Congressional Pay

In his last post Dr. Parker argues against the popular notion of refusing pay increases for members of Congress.[1] I agree with his position that it is largely a “feel good” ploy by the Tea Party and others to pander to our ever declining opinion of those in DC doing the people’s business however, let’s apply some basic behavioral economics to the issue.

First, realize that after 22 years in office a congressman is eligible for a pension payment of around $85,000 per year. Right now, the average term in office is about five years. In 2002, the pension payment ranged from $41,000 to $55,000. Not very much when you consider the expense of a second home in the DC area and the cost of campaigning.

Let’s look at this another way. The average age of members of the House at the beginning of the 112th Congress was 56.7 years - young enough for a second, if short, career. The overwhelming majority of members have a college education – typically a law degree or business background. When the status of a member of the House changes from member to former member what to they do? They mostly move into the lobbying game where they earn very large amounts of money cashing in on their expertise and rolodex as they represent often the very interests they regulated while holding elected office. The classic revolving door.

Viewed this way, the rational thing to do is “invest” in your congressional “education” for about the same amount of time it took to get your law degree and then go for the higher return on investment by starting a new career working on K Street.

Two other things. Keep in mind the overwhelming majority of House members are already wealthy. For example, the median net worth in 2009 of a House representative was more than 2.5 times more than it was in 1984 — $725,00 vs. $280,000 — adjusted for inflation (one interesting fact - our own Congressman Denny Rehburg enjoys a net worth in upwards of $56 million. Out of 535 members of Congress, he is richer than more than 95% of his Capitol Hill colleagues). The other thing to keep in mind is that while leftover campaign funds cannot be used for personal gain, FEC regulations require leftover campaign funds be returned to donors, transferred to a political party or candidate, or donated to charity. Of course generous donations are rewarded with board appointments, jobs, the ubiquitous lobbying contract and, (tell me it isn’t so) even university appointments.

Any way you look at it, serving in the House for even a short period of time has potentially high rates of payoff. The only logical solution to this and other inequities in the current political system is public finance of public elections.

---

[1] According to the State Department’s Office of Protocol, there is no such title as Congressman for members of the House of Representatives. Rather, they are supposed to be referred to by their social title (that is Mr. or Ms., or Dr., Mrs., or Miss as preferred). I realize this is a small matter but civilization runs smoother with recognition of social niceties. By the way, Wikipedia has this completely wrong.