High-dollar GOP donors and Super PACs are now sitting on the sidelines, the author writes. | POLITICO Staff Why the GOP's big money is failing

The Democrats are getting away with it.

Obamacare. Partisan witch hunts at the IRS. Benghazi. Snowden and the NSA. As the Obama machine spends its days denying and deflecting its way through scandal and incompetence — with barely a whimper of protest from a complicit media — the Republican Party is struggling to remain a part of the national conversation, unable to counterpunch or even gain traction. In essence, Republicans find themselves in an ammunition-rich environment with no means of firing a shot. And they can thank 2012 for that.


I’m not referring to the electoral loss, painful as it was; I’m talking about the $500 million advertising flop of the GOP super PACs and nonprofits. On top of its obvious futility, this high-profile bust has given prominent Republican donors a massive case of buyer’s remorse — a hangover that still hasn’t subsided some nine months after Mitt Romney’s defeat.

Ironically, high-dollar GOP donors and super PACs are now sitting on the sidelines at the very time they could be most effective. And this inability to re-engage, understandable as it may be, is already costing us for 2014.

It would be hard to fault Republican donors for a hesitance to open up their wallets again this year; after all, many are ultra-successful business owners, executives and entrepreneurs — men and women with long track records of smart investments. People who don’t like wasting money and have built storied careers doing exactly the opposite.

But to lay the blame for 2012 squarely on the shoulders of the GOP super PACs and nonprofits would be an incredible oversimplification, as there were a number of complex media dynamics in play — all of which made it next-to-impossible for these groups to achieve their goals no matter how much they spent.

Let’s start at the 30,000-foot level. To run a successful advertising campaign, political or otherwise, you need to establish a theme: a broad, overarching case that you’ll make to your audience about why your product is better than the other guy’s. In the advertising world, they call this “building a narrative.” And in a well-run campaign, each individual advertisement fits into that theme like pieces in a puzzle, creating a narrative that the voters will retain — a case for why your guy should be elected and why voting for the other guy would be a tragic mistake.

It makes simple sense when you think about it. When a prosecutor tries a case in court, does he try to convince the jury of the defendant’s guilt by throwing around a bunch of wild, disjointed accusations? No. He builds a case against the accused, one piece of evidence at a time, until the jury becomes convinced. The same holds true in the court of public opinion. Run a series of disjointed accusations and arguments, and it’ll become little more than noise — noise that the voters will all-too-quickly tune out. But build a strong case, piece by piece, and you’ll find that you can shape the public’s opinion about an issue or candidate entirely.

Need an example? Look no further than last year’s presidential election. On one side, you had a cohesive, damning narrative — Obama’s attacks on Romney. From early summer through Election Day, the Obama camp unleashed a powerful series of ads that successfully transformed Romney’s image from that of an accomplished businessman and public servant into that of a rapacious venture capitalist whose love of tax loopholes was exceeded only by his thirst for outsourcing. The message was coordinated and consistent. Romney never recovered.

Contrast that against our side, one of the more disjointed national advertising campaigns in modern political history. No narrative, no cohesion. A fragmented series of defenses and attacks from Medicare to welfare to Chrysler. It’s as if the campaign were never sure of the argument it wanted to make, whether for Romney or against Obama. Throw around a bunch of wild, disjointed accusations and what do you end up with? Noise.

Now, add some $500 million in outside spending to that mess, and the noise became deafening — hard for the public to follow, much less find persuasive. A strong argument could be made that, with cluttered airwaves and no coherent message at the top, the super PACs actually ended up doing more harm than good — especially in the case of the presidential race.

Hence the GOP’s current dilemma. With the House and Senate leadership jumping from issue to issue — and hard-pressed to gain any traction even if they had a unified message — direct communication with the voters might be the only way to establish a pro- Republican narrative. That would mean a well-funded, well-executed media and web campaign. That would mean a Super PAC. .

But following last year’s spectacular failure, super PAC fundraising pitches are falling on deaf ears. In other words, GOP donors aren’t funding the only chance the GOP may have. Without an impactful, coherent message —such as the “Where are the jobs?” refrain from 2010 — the prospect of picking up seats in the midterms dims dramatically.

The super PAC model needs a reboot, and fast. For starters, super PACs should focus on nonelection-year ad campaigns where they’ll get bigger bang for the buck. Lower rates and wide-open airwaves would mean the campaign stands a far better chance of connecting with voters — and, more important, successfully establishing a narrative.

It’s also going to take a different kind of ad campaign. With rare exception, GOP ads last year were the predictable, cookie-cutter hit pieces we’ve come to expect from D.C. ad firms. These types of ads simply aren’t as effective anymore — especially coming from nameless, faceless outside groups.

Instead of hitting viewers over the head with flashy graphics or hiring an actor to play a “troubled mom,” I’d advocate a different strategy: employing ads that speak to voters directly and frankly. Obama and the Democrats have given Republicans plenty of ammunition; all that’s really needed is a vehicle to deliver that damning information, to state the facts and provide examples — to do the job the media is failing to do. Hit Obama now in targeted markets, drive down his numbers, and prep the battlefield for 2014 by forcing down-ballot Democrats to run away from him.

Democratic operatives have already realized the value of this off-year approach and are using it for the exact opposite means: to reinforce the White House’s image and initiatives. In June, the Obama-affiliated super PAC Organizing for Action (OFA) placed its first $1 million ad buy in strategic markets in California, Texas and Florida. More are sure to follow, as figures released last week show Democratic super PACs outraising their GOP counterparts by better than a two-to-one margin: $39.7 million to $15.6 million so far this year.

The clock is ticking. A year from now, the airwaves will once again be flooded with campaign ads. Super PACs and nonprofits will again be marginalized, incapable of establishing any kind of narrative. In the interim, the press and outside groups like OFA will do their best to keep Obama afloat and ruin any chance of Republican gains in 2014. For the GOP to have any shot at taking the Senate next year — and, more important, to remain relevant in the years to come — the party must find an effective way to get its message out with a strategy that will appeal to checkbook-shy donors.

With the GOP so fragmented and the airwaves wide open, a smart, entrepreneurial super PAC could easily shape the message right now — and build a narrative that would carry the party through 2014. Let’s hope there’s one out there … and a donor or two willing to listen.

Chad Scarborough is a New York-based media consultant and former communications director for the U.S. House Committee on Homeland Security