Outside Spending in the 2014 Midterm Elections: The Lasting Effects of Citizens United Lucas L. Fortier Government Department, Professor Anthony Corrado, Colby College Group AnalysisOverview of 2014 Midterm Elections Expenditure Analysis Donor Analysis Disclosure Top Donors to SuperPACs: Democrats: Republicans: Tom Steyer- $73.7 million Paul Singer- $9.3 million Michael Bloomberg- $20 million Robert Mercer- $8 million Fred Eychaner- $7.9 million Sheldon Adelson- $5 million George Soros- $3.6 million J. Joe Ricketts- $4.9 million James Simons- $3 million Richard Uihlein- $4.2 million Source: All data for graphs and tables obtained from Center for Responsive Politics based on FEC Data- figures may not total 100 percent due to rounding Source: Carney, Eliza Newlin. “Billionaire Boys Club: Congress’ Top Super PAC Donors.” Roll Call. 3 November Top 20 Groups in Outside Expenditures GroupIdeology Type of Organization Disclosure Total Outside Expenditures American Crossroads/ Crossroads GPS ConservativeSuperPAC/ 501cPartial $47,686,296 Senate Majority PAC LiberalSuperPACYes $47,485,359 Chamber of Commerce Conservative Trade Association No $35,464,243 National Rifle Association Conservative501cPartial $30,923,860 House Majority PAC LiberalSuperPACPartial $29,488,965 Ending SpendingConservativeSuperPAC/ 501cPartial $26,233,268 Freedom Partners Action Fund ConservativeSuperPACPartial $21, NextGen Climate Action LiberalSuperPACYes $21,800,459 League of Conservation Voters LiberalSuperPAC/ 501cPartial $18,455,995 National Association of Realtors Neutral Trade Association No $10,699,423 Patriot Majority USA 501c Liberal501cNo $10,652,302 Put Alaska First PAC Liberal Single Candidate SuperPAC Yes $10,162,987 Congressional Leadership Fund ConservativeSuperPACPartial $9,851,629 American Action Network Conservative501cNo $8,958,129 Club for GrowthConservativeSuperPAC/ 501cPartial $8,515,449 EMILY’s List (Women Vote!) LiberalSuperPACPartial $8,223,774 Kentucky Opportunity Coalition Conservative Single Candidate 501c No $7,573,762 MayDay PACNeutralSuperPACYes $7,572,169 Americans for Responsible Solutions NeutralSuperPACPartial $6,887,973 Carolina RisingConservativeSingle Candidate 501c No $6,459,252 Discussion Group Analysis: Top 71 Groups spending $1 million or more accounted for 90% of total outside spending- $503 million Top 5% of groups- 20 groups- accounted for 2/3 of total outside spending Liberal SuperPACs outspent conservative counterparts- but Republican groups dominated 501c spending Development of single- candidate political nonprofits- key development for 2016 Presidential election Disclosure: About 20% of outside expenditures by top groups made by groups that did not disclose their donors About 45% of outside expenditures by top groups made by groups that only partially disclosed their donors Partial disclosure may reflect SuperPACs that receive significant contributions from 501cs Disclosure may decrease in future with development of single- candidate nonprofits Expenditure Analysis: 92% of expenditures by top groups made for/against only 37% of total candidates 52% of total outside expenditures by top groups went towards candidates in top 7 Senate Races- accounted for 72% of expenditures among all Senate Races In each of the top Senate Races, negative spending made against candidates significantly outpaced positive spending made for candidates Donor Analysis: Small group of extremely wealthy individuals giving millions of dollars to fund independent expenditures Drown out the voice of average Americans and small contributors Top donors each gave to multiple top spending groups- spread money across different outside spending groups Does not reflect donors that give money through 501cs- such as the Koch Brothers Issues: Focus on wealthiest donors drowns out voice of small, average donors Increased presence of money in campaigns leads to a money chase in federal elections- earlier and longer campaigns Lack of disclosure creates avenues for secret money- “dark money” Decreased transparency In American elections- don’t know who is funding attack ads Potential for corruptive influence when speakers can influence elections without having to reveal identities or how much money spent Greater negativity of campaigns due to increased presence of attack ads Speakers do not have to be held accountable for their speech Vague rules have led to questionable coordinative activities between candidates and outside groups