Presidential Advertising Largely Positive;

Dark Money Flooding Senate Contests

May 12, 2016

Report Highlights

• Advertising volume compared to 2008 and 2012

• GOP pres. candidates relying more on outside groups

• Top outside group sponsors

• Milwaukee, Hartford, Indianapolis saw most ads since March 15

• Super PACs pay for over 90% of GOP outside group ads

• Candidate ads overwhelmingly positive

• Issues featured in ads

• Hottest Senate races are in PA, MD and AL

• Senate Races: Top outside group sponsors

• Senate Races: Dark money groups more active



(MIDDLETOWN, CT) May 12, 2016 – Although the Republican Party has all but wrapped up its nomination race, the Democratic nomination remains a battle, and advertising volume and spending continue to mount. Advertising overall is up 122 percent over cycle-to-date volume at this point in the 2012 contest, and an estimated $408 million has been spent on television advertising in the presidential race so far, $138 million by Democratic candidates and Democratic-leaning groups and $270 million by Republican candidates and Republican-leaning groups (Table 1). That amounts to over 480,000 individual ad airings on local and national broadcast television and on national cable. By comparison, fewer than 220,000 presidential ads had aired by this point in the 2012 cycle at an estimated cost of $120 million.

Table 1: Ad Spending and Volume by Party and Sponsorship



Candidate Outside Group Party Total Democrats 2008 Ads Aired 239,392 8,412 116 247,920 Row % 96.6% 3.4% 0.0% 100.0% Est. Cost (in Millions) 135.19 4.96 0.52 2012 Ads Aired 14,543 6,224 9,842 30,654 Row % 47.4% 20.3% 32.1% 100.0% Est. Cost (in Millions) 5.23 4.21 6.12 2016 Ads Aired 230,582 1,585 232,167 Row % 99.3% 0.7% 100.0% Est. Cost (in Millions) 135.66 2.38 138.04 % Volume Change Over 2008 -4% -81% -6% % Volume Change Over 2012 1,486% -75% 657% Republicans 2008 Ads Aired 78,737 1,060 79,797 Row % 98.7% 1.3% 100.0% Est. Cost (in Millions) 57.2 0.47 2012 Ads Aired 64,157 122,506 55 186,718 Row % 34.4% 65.6% 0.0% 100.0% Est. Cost (in Millions) 24.58 78.73 0.02 2016 Ads Aired 114,529 137,772 249,327 Row % 45.9% 54.1% 100.0% Est. Cost (in Millions) 64.14 206.35 270.5 % Volume Change Over 2008 45% 12,614% 212% % Volume Change Over 2012 79% 10% 34% Figures are from Jan 1, 2015, to May 8, 2016. Numbers include broadcast television, national network and national cable television.

CITE SOURCE OF DATA AS: Kantar Media/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project.

2016 Democratic presidential airings are up notably over 2012 levels when Obama and the Democratic Party were already spending toward the general election, but roughly on par with the 2008 contest between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. On the Republican side, advertising volumes are up 34 percent over the 2012 primaries and 212 percent over 2008 levels.

Notably, the source of the parties’ ad spending was quite different. While over 98 percent of Democratic ad spending was done by the candidates’ campaigns themselves, only 24 percent of Republican ad spending was candidate-sponsored. The rest came from groups, many of them single-candidate super PACs.

Table 2 breaks down ad volumes and spending by which candidate it supports. The table totals counts all airings favoring a candidate including advertising by single-candidate super PACs and other supportive groups; however, advertising against Donald Trump not explicitly in favor of a particular Republican candidate as an alternative are included as a separate line since the beneficiary could have varied. The candidate who has benefited from the most advertising this cycle is Bernie Sanders, with nearly 125,000 airings at a cost of $73.7 million. Hillary Clinton is second, with 105,000 airings at a cost of $62.6 million. On the Republican side, Rubio benefited from the most advertising, with just under 60,000 ad airings. He was followed by Cruz (about 51,000), Bush (about 40,000) and Trump (about 33,000). Notably, anti-Trump messaging (those that did not explicitly advocate for a specific alternative) totaled 17,702 ads.

“One remarkable aspect of this campaign is that the candidates who benefited from the most advertising did not necessarily fare well in the race,” said Travis Ridout, co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project. “Trump managed to become the presumptive Republican nominee in spite of being out-advertised. One reason for this is his amazing ability to attract free media.”





Table 2: Cycle-to-Date Advertising Favoring Each Candidate (Including Supporting Groups)

Favored Candidate Airings Est. Cost

(in Millions) % Candidate

Airings % Group

Airings Sanders, Bernie 124,732 73.7 99.9% 0.1% Clinton, Hillary 105,376 62.6 99.4% 0.6% Rubio, Marco 59,275 72.7 40.6% 59.4% Cruz, Ted 51,220 37.6 59.1% 40.9% Bush, Jeb 39,062 66.9 9% 91% Trump, Donald 33,050 18.5 100% 0% Anti-Trump 17,702 24.2 0% 100% Kasich, John 15,696 18.9 52.9% 47.1% Carson, Ben 12,116 4.3 100% 0% Christie, Chris 5,791 14.6 7.1% 92.9% Perry, Rick 3,441 1.1 0% 100% Jindal, Bobby 3,413 3.8 0% 100% Paul, Rand 1,817 1.7 49.8% 50.2% Huckabee, Mike 1,694 1 24.6% 75.4% Graham, Lindsey 1,008 1.4 41.7% 58.3% Fiorina, Carly 761 0.5 84.6% 15.4% Figures are from Jan 1, 2015, to May 8, 2016.

Numbers include broadcast television, national network and national cable television.

All airings favoring a specific candidate are included in the totals; ads that attacked Trump but did not explicitly advocate for an alternative are included in the “Anti-Trump” line.

CITE SOURCE OF DATA AS: Kantar Media/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project.

The group that spent the most in the presidential race—and aired the most ads—was Right to Rise, the super PAC supporting Jeb Bush (Table 3). Conservative Solutions PAC, which supported Marco Rubio, aired the second most ads, followed by the pro-Cruz group, Stand for Truth. Our Principles PAC, which aired 7,000 ads attacking Donald Trump, aired the fourth highest number of ads.





Table 3: Top Outside Group Sponsors in the Presidential Race

Sponsor Cycle-to-Date

Total Airings Est. Cost

(in Millions) 2/15/16-5/8/16

Airings Est. Cost

(in Millions) Right To Rise USA (Pro-Bush) 35,558 62.4 3,153 2.9 Conservative Solutions PAC (Pro-Rubio) 30,169 50.9 19,783 34.1 Stand For Truth, Inc (Pro-Cruz) 10,330 9.2 6,119 6.2 Our Principles PAC (Anti-Trump) 7,000 8.4 6,428 8.1 Club For Growth Action 6,548 7.4 5,791 6.3 New Day For America (Pro-Kasich) 5,393 12.4 2,374 3.4 America Leads (Pro-Christie) 5,377 14.2 American Future Fund 5,278 9.1 4,695 8.3 Keep The Promise I (Pro-Cruz) 4,957 6.4 2,632 3 Conservative Solutions Project (Pro-Rubio) 4,882 7.5 Trusted Leadership PAC (Pro-Cruz) 3,461 3.2 3,461 3.2 Opportunity and Freedom PAC (Pro-Perry) 3,441 1.1 Believe Again (Pro-Jindal) 2,409 2.8 New Day Independent Media Committee, Inc (Pro-Kasich) 2,006 3 1,204 1.3 Club For Growth 1,970 2.5 1,970 2.5 Figures are from Jan 1, 2015 to May 8, 2016, and from February 15 to May 8, 2016, respectively, for groups airing more than 1,500 ads.

Numbers include broadcast television, national network and national cable television.

CITE SOURCE OF DATA AS: Kantar Media/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project.

Table 4 shows the top media markets from the period following the March 15 primaries just after Rubio dropped out. As shown in the table, Milwaukee, Hartford, and Indianapolis saw the most advertising with each over 4,000 ads. Cruz had large advantages in airings in both Milwaukee and Indianapolis. Sanders has an edge in both Milwaukee and Indianapolis whereas Hartford airings were more even between pro-Clinton and pro-Sanders ads. Salt Lake City and Indianapolis saw the highest volume of Anti-Trump ads.





Table 4: Top Media Markets Following March 15 Primaries (Presidential Ads)

Market State Total

Airings Pro-

Cruz Pro-

Kasich Pro-

Trump Anti-

Trump Pro-

Clinton Pro-

Sanders Last

Air

Date

(in 2016) Milwaukee WI 4,760 871 506 370 207 1,154 1,652 4/4 Hartford CT 4,491 - 75 - - 2,119 2,297 4/26 Indianapolis IN 4,381 2,125 - 707 535 - 1,014 5/3 New York NY 3,966 - 14 - - 1,762 2,190 4/19 Philadelphia PA 3,764 206 - 347 - 1,175 2,036 4/25 Green Bay WI 3,592 1,000 86 217 240 890 1,159 4/5 Madison WI 3,492 399 601 245 180 782 1,285 4/3 South Bend IN 3,397 1,608 - 656 311 - 822 5/3 La Crosse WI 3,138 733 121 203 142 498 1,441 4/5 Phoenix AZ 3,041 438 - 668 - 611 1,322 3/22 Salt Lake

City UT 2,563 584 541 259 574 - 605 3/22 Providence RI 2,539 - - - - 1,005 1,534 4/26 Ft. Wayne IN 2,406 952 - 536 257 - 661 5/3 Albany NY 2,380 - 199 - - 626 1,555 4/19 Terre Haute IN 2,228 974 - 560 239 - 455 5/3 Evansville IN 2,201 1,146 - 407 275 - 373 5/3 Harrisburg PA 2,197 159 - 193 - 814 1,031 4/26 Pittsburgh PA 2,163 165 19 210 - 717 1,052 4/26 Wilkes Barre PA 2,138 191 - 201 - 671 1,075 4/26 Rochester NY 2,081 16 123 - - 686 1,256 4/17 Wausau WI 2,062 649 198 159 110 183 763 4/5 Syracuse NY 2,045 - 154 - - 801 1,090 4/19 Buffalo NY 2,006 - - - - 722 1,284 4/19 Tucson AZ 1,703 - - 195 - 522 972 3/21 Johnstown PA 1,674 196 - 185 - 402 891 4/26 Erie PA 1,573 124 - 246 - 512 691 4/26 Baltimore MD 1,185 - - - 204 491 490 4/26 Louisville KY 1,155 475 - - - - 680 5/3 Binghamton NY 1,041 - 68 - - 500 473 4/19 Honolulu HI 1,026 - - - - 293 733 3/26 Lafayette IN 998 282 - 225 195 - 296 5/3 Portland OR 861 - 169 - - - 692 5/3 Seattle WA 751 - - - - - 751 3/25 Yuma-El

Centro AZ 738 - - - - 165 573 3/19 Utica NY 672 - 83 - - 226 363 4/19 Elmira NY 669 - 81 - - 246 342 4/18 Watertown NY 667 - 56 - - 289 322 4/18 Spokane WA 514 - - - - - 514 3/25 Casper WY 432 - - - - - 432 4/9 Yakima WA 391 - - - - - 391 3/26 Juneau AK 387 - - - - - 387 3/25 Idaho Falls-Pocatello ID 325 - - - - - 325 4/3 Twin Falls ID 280 - - - - - 280 3/21 Cheyenne WY 274 - - - - - 274 4/9 Duluth MN 259 - 259 - - - - 3/28 Anchorage AK 241 - - - - - 241 3/24 Boise ID 227 - - - - - 226 3/21 Fairbanks AK 173 - - - - - 173 3/25 Burlington VT 163 - - - - - 163 4/19 Billings MT 159 - - - - - 159 4/9 Cincinnati OH 109 108 - - - 1 - 5/3 Lincoln NE 85 - - 85 - - - 5/4 Eugene OR 79 - 79 - - - - 5/4 Minneapolis MN 64 - 64 - - - - 3/29 Salisbury MD 64 - 64 - - - - 4/26 North Platte NE 56 - - 56 - - - 5/4 Omaha NE 56 - - 56 - - - 5/4 Clarksburg WV 37 - - - - - 37 5/8 Charleston WV 36 - - - - - 36 5/6 Rapid City SD 33 - - - - - 33 4/8 Las Vegas NV 23 - - - 23 - - 3/17 Wheeling-Steubenville WV 21 - - - - - 21 5/6 Bluefield-Beckley WV 16 - - - - - 16 5/6 Figures are from Mar 16, 2016 to May 8, 2016.

Numbers include broadcast television, national network and national cable television. Excludes markets with fewer than 15 airings.

CITE SOURCE OF DATA AS: Kantar Media/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project.

Table 5 shows that the states holding the earliest nomination events received the most advertising. The Boston media market, which covers part of New Hampshire, had the most ad airings at 28,915. It was followed closely by Des Moines and Cedar Rapids in Iowa. Sioux City, Iowa, was fourth, followed by Manchester, New Hampshire. Markets in South Carolina, Nevada, Illinois, Wisconsin, Florida and Michigan also saw fairly heavy volumes of advertising in the presidential race.





Table 5: Top Media Markets by Volume and Spending

Media Market Total Airings Estimated Cost

(in Millions) Boston 28,915 71.00 Des Moines 28,741 17.80 Cedar Rapids 25,333 11.30 Sioux City 18,288 8.70 Manchester, NH 16,774 18.50 Charleston, SC 15,463 8.80 Columbia, SC 13,752 9.90 Davenport 13,645 7.10 Greenville, SC 12,229 15.60 Myrtle Beach 11,532 6.00 Burlington 10,362 7.00 Las Vegas 10,277 9.70 Reno 8,308 2.30 Rochester, MN 7,094 2.00 Omaha 6,061 4.00 Chicago 4,894 17.10 Portland, ME 4,784 2.60 Milwaukee 4,764 3.7 Orlando 4,757 8.8 Detroit 4,648 6.3 Figures are from Jan 1, 2015 to May 8, 2016.

Numbers include broadcast television, national network and national cable television.

CITE SOURCE OF DATA AS: Kantar Media/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project.



Super PACs Dominate Group Ad Spending

Table 6 breaks down interest group spending in the GOP primary nomination campaign by the type of sponsoring organization. Super PACs paid for over 90 percent of non-candidate sponsored advertising, amounting to nearly $190 million, while 501c4 (“dark money”) organizations have sponsored about 9 percent of non-candidate advertising. 527 organizations account for the rest of group-sponsored spending.

Michael Franz, co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project, explained, “The prevalence of super PAC spending is attributed to the proliferation of candidate-specific super PACs, at the moment a phenomenon largely unique to presidential campaigns.” The top three super PACs—listed in Table 3—account for nearly 76,000 airings.





Table 6: Outside Group Ads in GOP Presidential Primary by Type

Type Disclose Donors? Ad Volume Est. Cost

(in Millions) % of group volume Super PAC Yes 122,727 188.3 91.07% 501c4 No 11,565 17.9 8.58% 527 Yes 465 0.17 0.35% Figures are from January 1, 2015 to May 8, 2016.

Numbers include broadcast television, national network and national cable television.

CITE SOURCE OF DATA AS: Kantar Media/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project.

Disclosure information from the Center for Responsive Politics.

Presidential Advertising Largely Positive

The tone of the ad campaign was quite positive, as Table 7 shows. Considering both candidate- and group-sponsored advertising, 76.0 percent of ad airings were positive (mentioning only the favored candidate), 11.3 percent were negative (mentioning only an opponent) and 12.8 percent were contrast (mentioning both the favored candidate and an opponent).

“You wouldn’t know it by watching the news media’s coverage of the campaign, but the advertising in this presidential race has been quite positive. Three in four ads on television this race have touted a candidate as opposed to attacking an opponent,” said Erika Franklin Fowler, co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project.

The tone of the race varied considerably depending on who sponsored the advertising. Table 7 shows the tone of advertising for each candidate sponsor. Many candidates aired only positive ads, and those aired by Clinton and Sanders were over 99 percent positive. Across all candidates, about 92 percent of ads were positive. The least positive candidates were Larry Lessig (55.2 percent positive), Ted Cruz (56.3 percent positive) and Donald Trump (70.9 percent positive).





Table 7: Tone of Candidate-Sponsored Advertising

Candidate % Positive % Negative % Contrast Kasich, John 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% Paul, Rand 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% Fiorina, Carly 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% Graham, Lindsey 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% Gilmore, Jim 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% Huckabee, Mike 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% Pataki, George 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% Sanders, Bernie 99.90% 0.00% 0.10% Clinton, Hillary 99.60% 0.00% 0.40% Bush, Jeb 93.70% 0.00% 6.30% Carson, Ben 93.00% 0.00% 7.00% Rubio, Marco 85.40% 0.00% 14.60% Christie, Chris 79.00% 0.00% 21.00% Trump, Donald 70.90% 12.90% 16.10% Cruz, Ted 56.30% 18.90% 24.80% Lessig, Larry 55.20% 0.00% 44.80% All candidates 91.80% 2.90% 5.30% Figures are from Jan 1, 2015 to May 8, 2016.

Numbers include broadcast television, national network and national cable television.

Excludes minor candidates who aired few ads.

CITE SOURCE OF DATA AS: Kantar Media/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project.

Group sponsors were much more negative than candidate sponsors, as Table 8 shows. Just under 36 percent of group-sponsored ad airings were positive, compared to 32.3 percent that were negative and 31.8 percent that made contrasts. Several groups, such as America Future Fund and SEIU, aired only negative ads.





Table 8: Tone of Group Advertising

Sponsor % Positive % Negative % Contrast Conservative Solutions Project (Pro-Rubio) 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% Believe Again (Pro-Jindal) 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% Security Is Strength PAC (Pro-Graham) 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% Purple PAC (Pro-Paul) 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% America Next 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% American Future Project (Pro-Jindal) 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% Unintimidated PAC (Pro-Walker) 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% Planned Parenthood Votes 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% Communications Workers Of American Working Voices 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% American Opportunity PAC 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% America Leads (Pro-Christie) 79.00% 4.70% 16.20% Pursuing America's Greatness (Pro-Huckabee) 65.60% 0.00% 34.40% SEIU COPE 62.70% 37.30% 0.00% New Day Independent Media Committee, Inc (Pro-Kasich) 55.40% 11.90% 32.70% Opportunity And Freedom PAC (Pro-Perry) 48.50% 0.00% 51.50% Right To Rise USA (Pro-Bush) 39.80% 25.00% 35.20% Keep The Promise I (Pro-Cruz) 38.90% 33.50% 27.50% Conservative Solutions PAC (Pro-Rubio) 38.80% 18.50% 42.70% Trusted Leadership PAC (Pro-Cruz) 37.30% 42.60% 20.10% America's Liberty PAC (Pro-Paul) 37.00% 0.00% 63.00% New Day For America (Pro-Kasich) 19.30% 0.00% 80.70% Stand For Truth, Inc (Pro-Cruz) 0.00% 51.00% 49.00% Our Principles PAC (Anti-Trump) 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% Club For Growth Action 0.00% 77.70% 22.30% American Future Fund 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% Club For Growth 0.00% 65.40% 34.60% Foundation For A Secure And Prosperous America 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% ESA Fund 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% SEIU 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% Generation Forward PAC (Pro-O’Malley) 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% American Encore 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% Californians For Population Stabilization 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% Carly For America Committee (Pro-Fiorina) 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% We The People, Not Washington 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% Total 35.90% 32.30% 31.80% Figures are from Jan 1, 2015 to May 8, 2016.

Numbers include broadcast television, national network and national cable television.

Only includes groups that aired at least 100 ads.

CITE SOURCE OF DATA AS: Kantar Media/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project.

Presidential Candidates’ Issue Focus

The issue focus of presidential advertising has differed depending on the favored candidate as shown in Table 9. Ads promoting Clinton have tended to highlight women’s rights, health care and education while ads promoting Sanders have focused on Wall Street, the economy and financial services. On the Republican side, pro-Cruz and pro-Trump ads were more likely to focus on immigration while pro-Rubio spots highlighted foreign affairs and pro-Kasich ads featured the budget as the top issue.

Table 9: Top Three Issue Mentions by Favored Candidate (Including Supporting Groups)

Favored Candidate Top Issue 2nd Issue 3rd Issue Pro-Clinton Women's Rights Healthcare Education Pro-Sanders Wall Street Economy Financial Services Pro-Cruz Immigration Healthcare/Anti-ACA Faith Pro-Kasich Budget Jobs Taxes Pro-Rubio Foreign Affairs Public Safety Economy Pro-Trump Immigration Foreign Affairs Energy / Environment Analysis based on ads aired from Jan 1, 2016 to May 8, 2016.

Numbers include broadcast television, national network and national cable television.

CITE SOURCE OF DATA AS: Kantar Media/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project.

Senate Races Heating Up

Advertising in Senate contests is heating up rapidly as shown in Table 10 with Pennsylvania’s senatorial race seeing nearly double the ads of the number two contest. Incumbent Republican Pat Toomey and his outside group allies have already aired 6,514 ads (3,376 sponsored by Toomey himself) at an estimated cost of $9.4M while the three-way Democratic Pennsylvania contest between Joe Sestak, John Fetterman and Katie McGinty has racked up 15,795 airings at an estimated $22.9M from the candidates themselves and supporting groups.

Maryland’s contest to replace retiring Senator Barbara Mikulski has seen a total of 11,861 ads cycle-to-date primarily from the Democratic hopefuls (e.g., Chris Van Hollen has sponsored 5,046 airings to Donna Edwards’ 1,200). Alabama’s senatorial race is a close third with 11,412 airings to date. Incumbent Republican Richard Shelby has dominated the airwaves with 8,631 airings to Jonathan McConnell’s 2,088. Ohio (ranked #4 with 10,909 airings) and Wisconsin (ranked #5 with 9,363 airings) have also seen heavy activity on both sides of the aisle.





Table 10: Top Senate Races to Date

State All Airings Pro-Democratic Pro-Republican Airings % Group Est. Cost

(in Millions) Airings % Group Est. Cost

(in Millions) PA 22,309 15,795 29% 22.9 6,514 48.20% 9.4 MD 11,861 11,614 46% 12.9 247 0.00% 0.2 AL 11,412 79 0.00% 0 11,333 5.40% 6.8 OH 10,909 5,150 81% 5.3 5,759 100.00% 8.4 WI 9,363 4,742 63% 3.7 4,621 100.00% 5.7 IN 6,215 - 0 6,215 29.50% 5.3 IL 5,687 3,546 44% 7.3 2,141 13.80% 1.8 NV 5,526 2,605 3% 1.7 2,921 100.00% 3 NH 3,737 1,306 97% 1.7 2,430 73.00% 3.4 CO 3,143 2,052 40% 1.8 1,091 99.70% 1.3 FL 1,887 14 0% 0 1,873 0.00% 1.9 IA 1,450 522 100% 0.3 887 100.00% 0.9 MO 1,211 195 100% 0.3 1,016 100.00% 1.6 KY 1,171 1,171 0% 0.5 - 0 NC 793 294 0% 0.4 499 0.00% 0.4 AR 631 - 0 631 19.00% 0.4 AZ 485 - 0 485 100.00% 0.5 WA 288 288 100% 0.4 - 0 GA 147 - 0 147 0.00% 0.1 CA 22 - 0 - 0 Figures are from Jan 1, 2015 to May 8, 2016.

Numbers include broadcast television, national network and national cable television.

CITE SOURCE OF DATA AS: Kantar Media/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project.

All told, 98,247 Senate ads have aired this cycle, just under the 100,676 Senate ads that had aired by this point in time in the 2012 cycle.

Several groups are already involved in advertising in the 2016 Senate races, having spent $71 million already. As Table 11 shows, airing the most ads was Women Vote, a super PAC affiliated with Emily’s List, which was involved in primary races in Maryland and Pennsylvania. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has started advertising in Arizona, Illinois, Indiana, Nevada, Ohio and Pennsylvania—all potential Senate battlegrounds.





Table 11: Most Active Groups in Senate Races

Group Airings Est. Cost

(in Millions) States Advertising in Women Vote 5,049 7.4 MD, PA U.S. Chamber Of Commerce 4,350 6.3 AZ, IL, IN, NV, OH, PA One Nation 4,193 8.5 IA, IN, MO, NH, NV, OH, PA Americans For Prosperity 3,839 4.6 NH, OH, WI Senate Majority PAC 2,451 3.8 NH, NV, OH Judicial Crisis Network 2,162 2.7 AZ, CO, IA, NH, PA, WI League Of Conservation Voters 1,930 2 WI American Chemistry Council 1,648 2.2 MO, OH, PA Concerned Veterans For America 1,596 1.6 NV, PA New Leadership For Ohio 1,579 1.3 OH Environmental Defense Action Fund 1,576 3.6 PA, WI Freedom Partners Action Fund 1,363 1.7 NV, OH, WI Working For Us PAC 1,241 1.9 MD Accountable Leadership 1,111 2.7 PA End Citizens United 1,000 0.8 IA, MO, NH Club For Growth Action 938 1.4 PA, WI Restoration PAC 896 1.5 WI Senate Leadership Fund 874 1.4 IN Sierra Club 856 1 OH Natural Resources Defense Council 1,750 5.1 IL, OH Figures are from Jan 1, 2015 to May 8, 2016.

Numbers include broadcast television, national network and national cable television.

We include all ads that mention individuals running for office, and therefore sums may include issue advocacy advertising.

CITE SOURCE OF DATA AS: Kantar Media/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project.

Dark Money Flooding Senate Races

Finally, Table 12 breaks outside group spending in Senate races by the type of organization. Dark money in Senate races makes up a much greater percentage of total group spending than in the presidential race. Roughly 59 percent of outside group spending has been sponsored by 501c organizations, which are not required to disclose their donors. Thirty-five percent has come from super PACs (such as Women Vote and Senate Majority PAC), which do disclose.

“Presidential candidates can count on some free air time from news outlets as the race for the White House dominates the media’s attention,” said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics. “Senate candidates don’t have that luxury. They and their allies need to pay to get their message out in their state, and they’re leaning more than ever on groups that can accept unlimited anonymous contributions.”

Table 12: Outside Group Ads in Senate Races by Type

Type Disclose Donors? Ad Volume Est. Cost

(in Millions) % of group volume Super PAC Yes 16,102 24.2 33.5% 501c3* No 1,750 5.1 3.6% 501c4 No 20,803 35.1 43.3% 501c6 No 5,998 8.5 12.5% Corporation No 10 13.7 0.02% PAC Yes 3,409 3.3 7.1% Figures are from January 1, 2015 to May 8, 2016.

Numbers include broadcast television, national network and national cable television.

We include all ads that mention individuals running for office, and therefore sums may include issue advocacy advertising.

*Natural Resources Defense Council (501c3) aired attacks against Rob Portman (R-OH) and Mark Kirk (R-IL).

CITE SOURCE OF DATA AS: Kantar Media/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project.

Disclosure information from the Center for Responsive Politics.

Download a PDF of this report here



About This Report

Data reported here do not cover local cable buys, only broadcast television, national network and national cable buys. We include all ads that mention individuals running for office, and therefore sums may include issue advocacy advertising. All cost estimates are precisely that: estimates. Disclosure categorization information on outside groups comes from the Center for Responsive Politics.

The Wesleyan Media Project provides real-time tracking and analysis of all political television advertising in an effort to increase transparency in elections. Housed in Wesleyan’s Quantitative Analysis Center – part of the Allbritton Center for the Study of Public Life – the Wesleyan Media Project is the successor to the Wisconsin Advertising Project, which disbanded in 2009. It is directed by Erika Franklin Fowler, assistant professor of government at Wesleyan University, Michael M. Franz, associate professor of government at Bowdoin College and Travis N. Ridout, professor of political science at Washington State University. Laura Baum is the Project Manager. Dolly Haddad is the Project Coordinator and Matthew Motta is the Research Associate.



The Wesleyan Media Project is supported by grants from The John S. and James L. Knight Foundation and Wesleyan University. Data provided by Kantar Media/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project using Academiclip, a web-based coding tool. The Wesleyan Media Project is partnering this year with both the Center for Responsive Politics, to provide added information on outside group disclosure, and Ace Metrix, to assess ad effectiveness.

Periodic releases of data will be posted on the project’s website and dispersed via Twitter @wesmediaproject.



For more information contact:

Lauren Rubenstein, lrubenstein@wesleyan.edu, (860) 685-3813



About Wesleyan University

Wesleyan University, in Middletown, Conn., is known for the excellence of its academic and co-curricular programs. With more than 2,900 undergraduates and 200 graduate students, Wesleyan is dedicated to providing a liberal arts education characterized by boldness, rigor and practical idealism. For more, visit www.wesleyan.edu.

About the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation

Knight Foundation supports transformational ideas that promote quality journalism, advance media innovation, engage communities and foster the arts. We believe that democracy thrives when people and communities are informed and engaged. For more, visit www.knightfoundation.org.

About the Center for Responsive Politics

The Center for Responsive Politics is the nation’s premier research group tracking money in U.S. politics and its effect on elections and public policy. Nonpartisan, independent and nonprofit, the organization aims to create a more educated voter, an involved citizenry and a more transparent and responsive government. CRP’s award-winning website, OpenSecrets.org, is the most comprehensive resource available anywhere for federal campaign contribution and lobbying data and analysis.