Late last week, the 2014 election cycle passed a quiet milestone: $100 million in outside spending since January 1, 2013. While hundreds more millions are sure to follow, we now have enough data to take a look at some of this cycle’s trends in outside spending — who’s spending, on which races, and how the money is being put to use.

Who is doing the spending?

Although 2014 looks poised to shatter the records for spending by “dark money” groups, super PACs are still the vehicle of choice for people and organizations that want to spend unlimited money on elections. About six of every ten dollars in reported spending by outside groups so far this cycle has come from super PACs, slightly more than last cycle, and four of the five top spending groups are super PACs. Of the remainder, about half comes from political nonprofits such as 501(c)(4) “social welfare” groups and 501(c)(6) trade associations. Four of the top five spending groups this cycle are super PACs, with the Chamber of Commerce (a trade association) being the lone exception. Although the Citizens United decision gave unions and corporations the right to make independent expenditures out of their treasuries, very few have done so this cycle, preferring to donate to groups like the ones listed above instead.

Which races have seen the most outside spending?

Reflecting the widespread assumption that the Senate is much more likely to change hands than the House, 63.1% of this cycle’s reported outside spending has targeted the upper chamber. North Carolina’s Senate race, with both a brutal Republican primary and a vulnerable Democratic incumbent, has been the cycle’s top target for outside spenders; they’ve laid out more than $9.6 million. That race’s GOP nominee, Thom Tillis, has been on the receiving end of attacks from outside groups on both his left and his right that have totaled more than $5.1 million. That’s more than groups have reported spending on any other candidate.

Help us keep government accountable by making a donation today.

How much outside spending has targeted the primaries?

Given that voters have short memories, it’s not surprising that much of the spending to date seems to have been aimed at influencing primaries. Liberal outside groups have mostly been able to spend with an eye toward November, putting just $6.3 million into primaries, most of which came during 2013’s special elections. Conservatives, by contrast, have spent more than two-thirds of their outside money ($42.4 million) on primaries, reflecting the bitterness of outsider-versus-incumbent Republican battles like the Kentucky Senate race. The result is that liberal organizations have outspent conservative ones nearly 2-to-1 ($34.6 million to $19 million) in general election money, although it’s worth repeating that this will likely be only a tiny fraction of the outside money we’ll see by November.

What do outside groups buy with all that money?

While outside groups can use any number of tools to reach voters with their message, in practice the vast majority of their spending is on media. Of the $94.5 million in outside money that CRP has been able to classify, 86% went toward media, 7.1% toward mailings and other campaign materials (primarily by unions reaching out to their members), and 4.2% toward campaign activities such as canvassing and phonebanking, leaving less than 2% for everything else. When campaigns provide specific descriptions of the media they purchase (which isn’t required), they overwhelmingly indicate spending on old-fashioned broadcast media — no surprise to any voter who sat through 2012’s barrage of super PAC TV ads. Finally, a word about what is not included in that $100 million. Not all political ads — even some that mention specific candidates, such as Americans for Prosperity’s ad blitz against Democratic senators — have to be reported to the Federal Election Commission as outside spending. Ads like AFP’s that mention a federal candidate without using words such as “vote against” or “vote for” — in other words, not explicitly advocating for the election or defeat of a candidate — must be reported to the FEC only when they run within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary. So while $100 million isn’t pocket change by any standard, even that number doesn’t show the full influence of outside groups on the 2014 elections.



For permission to reprint for commercial uses, such as textbooks, contact the Center: Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics.For permission to reprint for commercial uses, such as textbooks, contact the Center: [email protected]





Support Accountability Journalism At OpenSecrets.org we offer in-depth, money-in-politics stories in the public interest. Whether you’re reading about 2020 presidential fundraising, conflicts of interest or “dark money” influence, we produce this content with a small, but dedicated team. Every donation we receive from users like you goes directly into promoting high-quality data analysis and investigative journalism that you can trust.Please support our work and keep this resource free. Thank you. Support OpenSecrets ➜