The Wisconsin Voter The Journal Sentinel's Craig Gilbert explores political trends in a purple state and beyond. SHARE

By of the

More than half the nearly $9 million spent by independent groups on Wisconsin's congressional races this year came from anonymous donors.

For believers in disclosure, that's not a very heartening development. But it's a fact of life in today's campaign system, which gives donors who want to influence elections lots of options, including the option of secrecy.

"Outside money" - election spending by interest groups as opposed to candidates - got a lot of media attention this past fall.

Here is a brief recap of the role it played in Wisconsin this year. The numbers are calculations based on data gathered by the Center for Responsive Politics and available on its website.

Outside groups spent roughly $8.9 million on the state's four competitive federal races (three contests for U.S. House and one for U.S. Senate).

About 60% of that money ($5.3 million) came from anonymous donors.

Conservative groups ($6.2 million) were far more active than liberal groups ($2.6 million).

And conservative groups were far more likely to use anonymous donors. Of the independent spending on the right, 74% came from undisclosed donors. Of the independent spending on the left, only 28% came from undisclosed donors.

These figures are for federal races only and do not include spending for governor and other state offices. (You can read about what happened in those races here.) And they include spending only by independent groups, not political party committees, which were also big players in some of these races.

But first, a political observation: Outside money didn't determine the outcome of these four races.

In the three competitive House contests, the candidates who benefited from the most outside spending all lost.

In the Senate race between Democrat Russ Feingold and Republican Ron Johnson, the outside money was almost entirely spent on the winning Republican side. But there is little to suggest that money was a decisive factor. In the end, the amount spent by independent groups was far less than what the two Senate candidates themselves spent.

That's not to dismiss the debate over the role of outside spending. The courts and the law are clear that independent groups are rightful players in elections. But there are legitimate arguments about the rules of the game. The current system strictly caps the donations candidates can raise but allows outside groups to campaign against those candidates with contributions that are both unlimited and undisclosed. (Whether groups have to disclose their donors depends on how they organize themselves under the tax and election laws.) The disclosure issue is likely to be back before both Congress and the courts in the coming years.

And now for the Wisconsin numbers:

U.S. Senate: The biggest share of outside money in Wisconsin was spent on the Johnson-Feingold Senate race - about $4.2 million. Almost all of that (about $3.9 million) was spent on the Republican side, benefiting Johnson. The biggest spenders were American Action Network ($1.2 million) and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (about $750,000). Anonymous donors funded both groups.

In this race, outside money was dwarfed by what the two candidates themselves spent - a combined $27 million in 2010. Looking at just TV spending, independent groups on the right spent about $1.6 million on TV during the fall campaign. Feingold and Johnson spent around $6 million each, according to data gathered by CMAG, which tracks political ads.

Eighth Congressional District: In this race, liberal groups outspent conservative ones, $1,273,346 to $757,670. But the candidate backed by liberal groups, Democratic incumbent Steve Kagen, lost to GOP challenger Reid Ribble. The biggest independent spender was the public employee union AFSCME, which spent $750,000. Those donors were disclosed, not anonymous.

Seventh Congressional District: Liberal groups also outspent conservative groups in this contest, $990,715 to $670,304. The candidate backed by liberal groups, Democrat Julie Lassa, lost to Republican Sean Duffy. The biggest spender was the liberal America's Families First Action Fund, which spent $375,200. Those donors were disclosed, not anonymous.

Third Congressional District: Conservative groups easily outspent liberal ones in this race, $867,854 to $27,600. But the candidate they backed, GOP challenger Dan Kapanke, lost to incumbent Democrat Ron Kind. The biggest spender was the conservative 60 Plus Association, which spent $585,833. Its money came from anonymous donors.

While outside spending did not "decide" this race, it arguably turned it into a more competitive one by funding an anti-Kind message at a time when his opponent had little money to do so himself. In this and other races around the country, conservative groups strategically spent to expand the playing field for the GOP and bring more Democratic-held seats into play. They also coordinated among themselves to avoid duplicating each other's efforts.

That's the Wisconsin picture. Conservative groups were also the more dominant players nationally, outspending liberal ones $191 million to $92 million in campaigns for Congress, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. That disparity reflected the motivation level among conservative donors this cycle, plus the obvious political opportunity they sensed to end Democratic control of Congress. In the three previous elections of 2004, 2006 and 2008, the dynamics were quite different, and liberal groups significantly outspent conservative ones, as this chart from the Center for Responsive Politics shows: