Election Spending 2016: Eight Toss-Up Senate Races

Ian Vandewalker
*Research provided by Alexis Farmer
With control of the Senate at stake, outside money is pouring into the most competitive contests, a
new Brennan Center analysis shows. Most importantly, shadow party groups, outside spenders
with close ties to the Senate leadership of each party, look to be even bigger players than they were
in 2014. Together, these groups have poured $47 million in outside spending into the eight closest
Senate races so far.
The highest-spending group through mid-August, according to data from the Federal Election
Commission (FEC), is the Senate Majority PAC, a Democratic shadow party super PAC with close
ties to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. Senate Majority has spent $19.6 million across the eight
closest Senate races, including $9.6 million in Ohio alone. The group is on pace to match its
spending from 2014, when it was the biggest non-party spender in the most competitive Senate
contests. An affiliated non-profit, Majority Forward, which does not disclose its donors, has spent
an additional $2.7 million.
The Republican analogues to the Democratic groups are the nonprofit One Nation and its affiliated
super PAC, Senate Leadership Fund. Both are run by Steven Law, former chief of staff to Senate
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Yet unlike the Democrats, the Republicans have so far done
most of their spending $22 million in the close Senate races through the nonprofit One
Nation, which does not report its spending or its donors to the FEC. Another $3 million has come
through the Senate Leadership Fund, for a total of $25 million.
The growth of shadow party groups has the potential to undermine limits on contributions to the
party committees themselves, making parties, through their affiliated groups, more dependent on
megadonors, corporations, and unions. And, unlike the money that goes through party committees,
the sources of much of the money raised by these affiliated groups are not disclosed, leaving the
public in the dark as to who is providing the funds that parties and other key players are increasingly
dependent upon.

Other findings from the Brennan Center analysis of the $109 million in reported outside
expenditures in the closest Senate races include:

The continued growth of shadow parties and the network founded by the billionaire Koch
brothers may be slowing the rise of congressional single-candidate groups that began after
Citizens United and was a major factor in last cycles Senate elections. The $12 million spent
by candidate-specific groups this year comprises only 12 percent of non-party outside
spending in the most competitive elections so far, compared to 21 percent in August 2014.

Despite reports about an infusion of big money into Senate races due to conservative
donors discomfort with Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, FEC data offers
little evidence so far that Trumps presence at the top of the ticket is diverting large amounts
of money into Senate elections.

As in previous elections, much of the spending is not transparent. Secret spending funneled through
groups that dont reveal their donors, sometimes called dark money, amounts to $26.8 million, or
one quarter of non-party outside spending in toss-up races. And as we have seen in the past, proRepublican groups are much more likely to hide their donors: secret spending favors GOP
candidates by a greater than two-to-one ratio.
The above totals are based on FEC data, but many expenditures are not required to be reported to
the FEC. Adding expenditures detailed in press releases and news reports but not in FEC data
would increase the totals across the eight toss-up Senate races significantly. Total outside spending
would be at least $137.6 million, 26 percent greater than the reported spending. Expenditures by
groups that hide their donors would be at least $55.4 million, or 40 percent of the larger $137.6
million total. Virtually all the unreported spending we found supported GOP candidates.
Our sample is comprised by the eight Senate races listed as toss-ups by the Cook Political Report,
which are in Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
We collected FEC data on independent expenditures in primary and general elections for the U.S.
Senate seats in those states through August 12, 2016. We also relied on data from the Center for
Responsive Politics as a reference. Outside spending refers to expenditures made by any entity
other than a candidates committee, including party committees. We exclude parties from some parts
of the analysis, which is always signaled by the term non-party outside spending.

Shadow Party Groups Take Advantage of Loose Rules

Federal candidates and political parties must raise funds under contribution limits designed to reduce
the risk or appearance of corruption large donations present. They are also prohibited from taking
money directly from corporations or unions. But Citizens United and other court decisions have
enabled super PACs and nonprofits that dont register as political committees to accept unlimited
contributions and spend unlimited amounts as long as they dont coordinate with candidates on
specific expenditures. When these organizations are affiliated with a political party, typically run by

BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE | 2

operatives with ties to the party leadership, they are considered shadow party groups that allow
the party to benefit from the groups unrestrained fundraising.
For instance, Harry Reid has personally solicited donations for the Democrats shadow party super
PAC, Senate Majority PAC. Its $19.6 million in spending in our sample is funded in part by eight
donations of $1 million or more, as well as contributions from several unions. Although Senate
Majority reports its donors, it has received funds in the past from two nonprofits that hide their
donors, Majority Forward and Patriot Majority USA. Majority Forward, which shares some staff
with Senate Majority, also spends on its own, including $2.7 million this cycle, mostly on ads
attacking incumbent GOP Sen. Pat Toomey (Pa.).
The Republican counterparts to the Democrats operation are a super PAC called Senate Leadership
Fund and an affiliated nonprofit, One Nation. Both were created in 2015 and have ties to the Karl
Rove-founded Crossroads groups, which were among the biggest pro-GOP outside spenders in
previous election cycles. The key link is Steven Law, a former Mitch McConnell aide who runs
Crossroads, Senate Leadership Fund, and One Nation. McConnell has reportedly praised the Senate
Leadership Fund to potential corporate donors and directed GOP senators to steer big donors to
One Nation and the Senate Leadership Fund. Senate Leadership Fund has eight contributors of $1
million or more, including corporations like Chevron, Petrodome Energy, and Access Industries, the
owner of Warner Media Group. One Nations donors are hidden, although it reportedly raised $34
million in its first year.
So far, the Republican shadow party groups have reversed the pattern set by the Democrats, in that
the GOPs secret-spending group has vastly outspent its super PAC. One Nations announced
spending actually makes it the biggest spender in the eight top Senate races, although it doesnt show
up in FEC spending data. The Senate Leadership Fund wont stay quiet for much longer, though
at the end of June, it announced ad buys in four of the eight tightest contests that would add
another $36.1 million to its total by October.

Spending Is Concentrated among a Few Interests

Three major spending coalitions are together responsible for 58 percent of the reported outside
spending across the eight races: the Democratic Partys shadow party groups, the Koch brothers
network, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. This consolidation of outside spending may make it
hard for other groups to make a significant splash, and may even be sapping resources from another
type of group that has been on the rise since Citizens United, the single-candidate group.
At this point in 2014, a pair of Democratic shadow party groups was clearly the dominant force in
Senate spending, accounting for well over one-third of outside spending in the nine closest races.
Outside spending in favor of GOP candidates, while higher altogether, came from a broader array of
sources. The Chamber provided nine percent, and the GOP-affiliated American Crossroads
accounted for just six percent. This year, in contrast, Republican shadow party groups are replicating
the past success of the Democrats in consolidating spending, and the Chamber and the Koch
network are each spending more.

BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE | 3

The Democrats shadow party groups, Senate Majority PAC and Majority Forward, have provided
$22.4 million, or 21 percent of reported outside expenditures. The Republicans shadow party
groups appear less dominant from FEC data because of their reliance on unreported spending by
One Nation. But, taking unreported spending into account, One Nation and Senate Leadership
Fund have spent a combined $25 million, putting the GOP shadow party in the lead in the eight
close races.
The network founded and partially funded by the billionaire industrialist brothers Charles and David
Koch, which supports Republicans who espouse free-market principles, spent $20.3 million, or 19
percent of total outside expenditures. These expenditures came from the super PAC Freedom
Partners Action Fund and the secret-money group Americans for Prosperity. News reports indicate
that Americans for Prosperity and other Koch network groups have spent millions more that has
gone unreported. Koch network spending on competitive Senate races has increased dramatically
since the midterms: Freedom Partners Action Fund has already spent almost as much this year as it
spent in the entire 2014 cycle.
The Chamber of Commerce has poured $16.7 million into the eight toss-up races, amounting to 17
percent of outside expenditures. The Chamber has consistently been one of the biggest outside
spenders in Congressional elections since 2008. So far in 2016, it has supported exclusively
Republican candidates (in past cycles, it has supported only two or three Democrats). The
Chambers spending on Senate elections this year is more than 2.5 times its spending at this point in
2014.
Top Outside Spenders in Eight Toss-Up Senate Races
Organization

Description

Spending in Eight
Toss-Up Races

One Nation

Republican Party-affiliated secretspending nonprofit

Senate Majority PAC

Democratic Party-affiliated
super PAC

$19,633,433

Freedom Partners Action Fund

Koch network super PAC supporting

Republicans

$18,136,374

U.S. Chamber of Commerce

Secret-spending nonprofit supporting

Republicans

$16,673,449

American Federation of State

County & Municipal Employees
PEOPLE

Labor PAC supporting Democrats

$6,672,943

Fighting for Ohio Fund

Single-candidate super PAC supporting

GOP Ohio Sen. Rob Portman

$5,856,647

$21,908,000

*not reported to FEC

BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE | 4

The dominance of these few interests, especially the shadow parties, appears to contradict the theory
that loosening campaign finance rules would create opportunities for new voices to emerge in
politics. On the contrary, the existing power structure ruled by the parties and a few ideological
groups has made the most of the big-money resources opened up by Citizens United and other legal
changes. One potential casualty of this concentrated landscape although it is still relatively early
in the cycle is the single-candidate group in congressional races.
Single-candidate groups, or buddy groups, are outside spenders devoted entirely to electing a
specific candidate. Typically organized as super PACs or nonprofits, they can take contributions that
their favored candidate couldnt accept directly, such as checks larger than candidate contribution
limits or from corporations or unions. The group then spends all the money boosting that candidate.
Many buddy groups choreograph their activities with candidates by hiring former staff, sharing
vendors, or following signals sent through publicly available channels. These practices threaten the
effectiveness of limits on contributions to candidates and ban on coordination between candidates
and outside groups.
Across the eight toss-up races, there were $12 million in expenditures from single-candidate groups.
Buddy groups comprise a significantly smaller percentage of outside spending (12 percent) than they
did in nine toss-up races at this point in 2014 (21 percent). This is likely the result of concerted
efforts to consolidate resources in shadow party groups like Senate Majority and the Senate
Leadership Fund by party leaders, who reportedly hope the two new organizations will discourage
buddy PACs and relieve donors confusion about where to give.
Nevertheless, buddy groups are still important players in some races, and as political scientists have
found, incumbents are making the most of them. Ohio has seen the most single-candidate group
activity this cycle, due largely to $5.9 million spent by the Fighting for Ohio Fund, which supports
Sen. Rob Portmans reelection. Florida is running second in buddy group expenditures, and Sen.
Marco Rubios June entry into the race signals more to come. Rubios failed presidential bid was
aided by a buddy group coalition called Conservative Solutions. Staff and funding from Conservative
Solutions have now made their way to a super PAC dedicated to boosting Rubios Senate campaign
called the Florida First Project, which is one of the biggest spenders in that race.
There are several other buddy groups in our sample, although their spending has been relatively low
so far. In Wisconsin, GOP incumbent Sen. Ron Johnson is being aided by Let America Work, a
super PAC run by the chief strategist from Johnsons 2010 election campaign, whose consulting
company also did work for Johnsons campaign as recently as July 2015. In Illinois, a singlecandidate super PAC called Independent Voice for Illinois is spending in support of Republican
Sen. Mark Kirks reelection. The group is headed by Kirks former chief of staff.

BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE | 5

Scant Evidence of a Trump Effect On Spending

Outside spending in 2016 is running significantly ahead of spending at a comparable point two years
ago. This cycle, the eight closest Senate races have seen $109 million in outside spending, while by
mid-August of 2014, that cycles nine toss-ups had seen outside expenditures amounting to $72
million. There have been reports of major conservative donors who are uncomfortable with Trump
and intend to shift money into the effort to retain Republican control of the Senate. But a careful
look at the data shows little evidence so far that money that ordinarily would have gone to a GOP
presidential nominee is being diverted into close Senate contests.
Donald Trump became the presumptive Republican nominee on May 3 of this year, when Sen. Ted
Cruz dropped out. The timing closely parallels the final stages of the previous cycles primary battles,
when Newt Gingrichs exit on May 2, 2012, made Mitt Romney the presumptive GOP nominee. In
the three months after he wrapped up the nomination, Romneys campaign committee raised almost
twice as much as it did in the three months before Gingrich left the race. Between the campaign, the
Republican National Committee, and the single-candidate super PAC Restore Our Future,
Romneys forces amassed $134 million from May to July.
Trumps fundraising also grew dramatically after he became the de facto nominee. (In fact, Trump
did little fundraising before then.) Even so, the combined receipts of Trumps campaign committee,
the RNC, and a handful of supportive super PACs between May and July comes to $72 million,
leaving Trump about $60 million behind the pro-Romney fundraising operation by this point in
2012.
Conservative groups active in the top Senate races have not seen their fundraising increase by
anything remotely close to $60 million over those same three months. Most of the biggest-spending
groups on the GOP side raised similar amounts from May to July as they had during the prior three
months. Senate Leadership Fund, the GOP shadow party group, actually raised less after Trump
wrapped up the nomination.
The clear exception is the Koch network super PAC, Freedom Partners Action Fund, which
brought in $10.9 million over the three months following Cruzs exit. This was a dramatic spike in
fundraising following several months of receipts in the six-figure range or lower. The groups haul
since the beginning of May includes millions from megadonors opposed to Trump, like Charles
Koch and hedge fund titan Paul Singer. But it also includes $2 million from roofing magnate Diane
Hendricks, who serves as a vice-chair of the Trump Victory Fund, a joint fundraising committee
benefitting Trumps campaign and Republican Party committees. So clearly not all the Freedom
Partners money can be attributed to a supposed Trump effect on Senate spending.
Of course, this years Senate elections have seen heavy spending from groups that dont report
contributions to the FEC, like the Chamber of Commerce and the Republican Party-affiliated
nonprofit One Nation. Its possible that donors turned off by Trump are funneling contributions
through these and other non-disclosing organizations if so, the public will never know. Casino
magnate Sheldon Adelson, the biggest donor of the 2012 cycle, reportedly gave $10 million to One
Nation recently even as observers note that his earlier endorsement of Trump has not yielded any
reported contributions to groups supporting the nominee. And yet, the spending of the One Nation

BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE | 6

and the Chamber in the tightest Senate races from January 2015 to August 2016 adds up to less than
$40 million. Even if the great majority of that money came from donors turned off by Trump a
proposition there is no reason to believe, not least since most people doubted Trump would be the
nominee for much of that period it still wouldnt come close to matching Trumps fundraising
deficit compared to Romney.
Although outside spending is running ahead of a similar point in 2014, it is heavily concentrated in
two states with expensive media markets, Ohio and Pennsylvania, where first-term GOP
incumbents, elected on a wave of Tea Party discontent, are facing strong Democratic challengers. So
far, $36 million has been spent in Ohio, and $25.2 million in Pennsylvania.
Those two races are on track to shatter last years spending records. By August 2014, there had been
only $14 million in outside spending in what turned out to be the most the expensive congressional
race ever, where outside groups poured $80 million into the battle that ended with North Carolina
GOP challenger Thom Tillis knocking off first-term Sen. Kay Hagan. In addition to Ohio and
Pennsylvania, this cycles New Hampshire contest has also exceeded 2014s $14 million August highwater mark; in that race, first-term incumbent Kelly Ayotte is being challenged by Democratic Gov.
Maggie Hassan.

Indeed, variation in media markets could account for much or all of the overall increase in spending
over 2014, rather than any increase in donations due to a supposed Trump effect. Almost all of the
competitive Senate races in 2014 took place in states with few or no large media markets North
BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE | 7

Carolina being the exception. This year, some of the most expensive states for media buys are in
play.
Another possible factor is simply the general trend in election expenditures. Overall election
spending has steadily increased faster than inflation over time, and outside spending has dramatically
increased in every cycle since the Supreme Court gave it a green light in the 2010 Citizens United
decision. In addition, spending is typically somewhat higher in presidential cycles, even for
congressional races.

Secret Spending Continues

Across the sample of eight races, FEC data reveals $26.8 million in spending by groups that dont
disclose their donors, which is 25 percent of non-party outside spending. Another $10 million was
spent by organizations that only partially disclose the sources of their funds.

However, a far-from-exhaustive examination of press releases and news reports found $28.6 million
more in spending by non-disclosing groups in the same eight contests. So the true total of spending
originating with hidden donors is more than twice as high as what is revealed in FEC data: at least
$55.4 million in spending that originated with donors hidden from the public. Indeed, a recent study
by the Center for Responsive Politics and the Wesleyan Media Project found that secret-spending
groups typically spend more on unreported ads than they do on the expenditures that show up in
FEC data, hinting that the true secret-spending total in our sample may be even higher.
BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE | 8

Some ad spending goes unreported because the law only requires disclosure of expenditures if the ad
explicitly calls for a vote or mentions a candidate in the final weeks before the election. Spenders can
easily avoid the rule with sham issue ads that praise or attack candidates early in the cycle.
Due in large part to the conservative bent of the Chamber of Commerce, Republicans have a huge
advantage in reported dark-money spending in our sample: the $19.4 million in pro-GOP secret
spending is more than twice the $7.4 million in favor of Democrats. More than one-third of proRepublican non-party outside spending comes from groups that dont reveal their donors. If the
unreported spending we discovered, which comes almost entirely from conservative groups, were
taken into account, the difference would be even greater.
The shadow party group One Nations activity comprises the greatest part by far of the unreported
spending we found. Groups in the Koch network have also reportedly spent millions more than
FEC data reveals. American Crossroads a super PAC which, like One Nation, is run by former
Mitch McConnell aide Steven Law has been one of the biggest spenders in every election since
Citizens United. This year the group has no expenditures in FEC data in our sample. But media
reports indicate that Crossroads has been on the air in some of the eight toss-up Senate contests.
Steven Law told NPR the group is spending a lot of resources in New Hampshire and
Pennsylvania, and it intervened in the Republican primary in Indiana. The super PACs affiliated
secret-spending nonprofit, Crossroads GPS, also paid for radio ads in New Hampshire.

This analysis reveals that outside spending in Senate elections is on track to shatter the records set
just last cycle. Spending patterns so far show that heavyweights from prior elections like the
Chamber of Commerce and the Koch network are spending even more, and shadow party
organizations may be successfully consolidating financial resources, leaving less for single-candidate
groups.
However, even if the rise of single-candidate groups has been slowed, there is still a danger of
collaboration. Outside spenders and candidates both seem to rely on small universes of staff and
vendors, sorted by partisan allegiances. Outside groups importance to campaign finance and their
reliance on contributions that would be illegal if given to a candidate or party reveal that
contribution limits offer less and less protection against a political system that favors wealthy
megadonors. And inadequate transparency infringes on the voters ability to hold elected officials
accountable.
As money in politics continues to be an issue in the 2016 elections, voters must demand reforms
that ensure that everyones voice is heard and keep big-money groups from acting as a barrier to
political power of ordinary people.

BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE | 9