Electronic Comment Filing System

Michigan Campaign Finance Network December 22, 2011 Federal Communications Commission 445 1 ill Street SW Washington, DC 20554 RE: Comment on FCC 11 -162 Gentlepersons: I am writing to you with respect to the issue of requiring broadcasters to web-publish their political files. I am writing from the perspective of executive director of a public interest nonprofit organization that conducts research and provides public education on money in state politics in Michigan. I have been a very regular visitor to the public political files of Michigan television broadcasters for the past decade. I conduct my research in the broadcasters' political files in order to be able to report on a large and important aspect of Michigan political campaigns that is not reported in the Michigan Department of State's official campaign finance repOlting system. That is the matter of candidate-focused "issue" advertising, otherwise commonly known as electioneering communications. In June of 20 11 , my organization published a report titled, "$70 Million Hidden in Plain View," which summarized my findings for the period from 2000 through 2010. Beyond the overall figure of $70 million worth of candidate-focused television advertisements that were unreported, it included the following important facts that I was able to assemble from the broadcasters ' political files: ? From 2000 through 2010, $20.8 million, or 49.5 percent of all spending in Michigan Supreme Court election campaigns, was not reported to the State. ? In three gubernatorial campaigns in 2002, 2006 and 2010, $42 million in candidate-focused television advertising was not reported to the State. ? In 2010, the following percentages of campaign spending in statewide general election campaigns were not reported to the State: Governor: 53.5 percent; Supreme Court: 56.5 percent; Attorney General: 44.8 percent; Secretary of State: 50.0 percent. This research has allowed me to report to the people and the press in Michigan the great extent to which our campaigns are not disclosed. In effect, I am able to define the dimensions of a campaign finance black-box, even though I am unable to say who is putting money into the black-box. This allows me to make the most compelling case 200 Museum Drive _ Lansing, MI48933 _ (517) 482-7198 _ Email: mCfn@mcfn.org _ www.mcfn .org Federal Communications Commission December 22, 2011 Page 2 possible as to why Michigan's Campaign Finance Act needs to be updated to require more complete disclosure. My data are reported by virtually every news organization in Michigan, including newspapers, commercial and public radio, blogs and Internet magazines, and, yes, local television. At a meeting of the Michigan Newspaper Editors' Association in Mount Pleasant in October of 20 1 0, the capital bureau chief of the Associated Press told the assembled editors that she and her colleagues and competitors rely on my data collection because they don't have the time to collect the records themselves. This leads to the important point of why I am urging you to require the broadcasters to make the contents of their political files web-accessible. I do not want, nor should I have, the unique responsibility of making this important information available to the citizens of my state. I can testify to you, unequivocally, that the threshold of effort necessary to report this important public interest story is too high for every news organization in Michigan, except mine. Anecdotally, let me layout the cost of providing the benefit I have described in the preceding paragraphs. Each election cycle I drive thousands of miles and spend scores of hours in data collection. To cite the extreme, I have spent 14 hours behind the windshield to engage in a 15 minute data collection exercise at a station in Marquette in the Upper Peninsula. In 21 st Century America, that is ridiculous. Broadcasters can easily web­ publish the contents of their political files, and they should do so. I implore you to appreciate that the public interest will not be served if you merely require broadcasters to serve records of candidate committees' purchases. The citizens need to know the full extent of "issue" ad buys too. In addition to the candidate-focused ads in campaign season that I have discussed already, there are indirect lobbying campaigns conducted through television advertising on matters of critical public policy that are not reported through the State's lobbying activity reporting system. The public interest requires records of those campaigns, too, to be available readily to the public. I give you one last example of the need for your rules to have broad scope to serve the public interest. In 2010, the Republican Governors Association, a 527 committee, spent some $3 .5 million for TV advertisements that featured both major parties' candidates for governor of Michigan - more than either candidate spent. Those ad buys were not reported to the Department of State. In addition, sales managers at several important stations around Michigan told me that the RGA pressured them to withhold records of its activity from their public political files, and several complied with its request. If you fail to make your rules inclusive of state political issue advertising, you will be leaving an opening that severely compromises the public's right to know the extent to which its Federal Communications Commission December 22, 2011 Page 3 airwaves are being used for overtly political purposes. Please, do not allow that to happen. I appreciate the opportunity to offer my perspective on this very important matter. Please give the public's right to know the role of money in state politics its due consideration. s!t1~ Richard L. Robinson Executive Director Enclosure: $70 Million Hidden in Plain View cc: Karole L. White, President, Michigan Association of Broadcasters Trey Fabacher, Chairman Elect, Michigan Association of Broadcasters $70 Million Hidden in Plain View Michigan?s Spectacular Failure of Campaign Finance Disclosure, 2000-2010 The Michigan Campaign Finance Network is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that conducts research and provides public education on money in Michigan politics. Board of Directors John Chamberlin Eva Garza Dewaelsche Jan C. Dolan Patricia Donath John M. Koval Lynn Jondahl John P. Mayer Alma Wheeler Smith Susan Grimes Width Rich Robinson, executive director © June 2011 by Michigan Campaign Finance Network Data and information may be used for public education with attribution. This report was researched and written by Rich Robinson. The work of the Michigan Campaign Finance Network is sustained by voluntary contributions from concerned Michigan citizens and the generous support of the Joyce Foundation of Chicago. Publication of this report was assisted by a contribution from the Mariel Foundation of Traverse City. Michigan Campaign Finance Network 200 Museum Drive, Lansing, MI 48933 Phone: (517) 482-7198 | Email: mcfn@mcfn.org | Web: www.mcfn.org Table of Contents Research Methodology: Estimating the Known Unknowns ............................................................................................ 2 The Absence of Accountability ....................................................................................................................................... 3 Interests in Conflict ........................................................................................................................................................ 3 Michigan Supreme Court Campaigns, 2000-2010: The Invisible Hand in Judicial Campaigns ..................................... 4 Table 1. Michigan Supreme court Campaign Finance Summary, 1984-2010 ....................................4 - 5 Figure 1. Michigan Supreme court Campaign Finance Summary, 1984-2010 .........................................6 Michigan Gubernatorial Campaigns, 2002-2010: $42 Million Off the Books ............................................................... 7 Table 2. Michigan Gubernatorial Campaign Finance Summary, 2002-2010 ...........................................7 Attorney General and Secretary of State Campaigns: $5.9 Million that Made a Difference ............................................ 8 Ignoring the Blunt Instrument of Michigan Campaigns ................................................................................................ 8 The Cost of Willful Ignorance .........................................................................................................................................9 Figure 2. The Dashboard of Campaign Finance Accountability, 2010 ......................................................9 Table 3. Statewide Office Campaign Finance Summaries, 2010 .................................................................9 A Simple Fix to Restore Integrity ..................................................................................................................................10 Endnotes ........................................................................................................................................................................11 Appendix A. Summaries of Michigan Supreme Court Campaign Finances, 1984-2010 ...................................................12 Appendix B. Summaries of Michigan Gubernatorial Campaign Finances, 2002-2010 .....................................................14 Appendix C. Summaries of Attorney General and Secretary of State Campaign Finances, 2002-2010 .............................15 $70 Million Hidden in Plain View Michigan?s Spectacular Failure of Campaign Finance Disclosure, 2000-2010 Research Methodology Estimating the Known Unknowns The campaign television advertisements that are not disclosed in the State?s campaign finance reporting system are commonly described as candidate- focused ?issue? advertisements. These ads carefully avoid the language of express advocacy, as it is defined in the 1976 U.S. Supreme Court case of Buckley v. Valeo1. In federal campaigns, such advertisements are described as electioneering communications. In general, records of candidate-focused issue advertisements are found in the public files of the state?s broadcasters and cable systems. The Michigan Campaign Finance Network has collected records of candidate-focused issue advertisements from broadcasters? public files since the 2000 election cycle. Prior to the passage of the federal Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), popularly known as the McCain-Feingold reforms, some broadcasters withheld sales records for their issue advertisements. During that period, values of sales at non-reporting stations were derived from estimates published by the Campaign Media Analysis Group (CMAG). CMAG?s estimates were constructed from an application of the stations? advertising rate cards to spot-frequency records collected by satellite. Subsequent to the passage of BCRA, state broadcasters and cable systems adopted the practice of keeping all records of issue advertisements in their public files, along with those of reported independent expenditures and the candidates? own advertisements. That practice was uninterrupted until the 2010 election cycle. In the fall of 2010, the Target Enterprises advertising agency, acting on behalf of the Republican Governors Association, requested selected corporate owners of Michigan broadcast licenses to withhold records of its issue ads in support of now- Gov. Rick Snyder. Several broadcasters complied, citing the fact that Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations require public access to records on matters of national importance (reference to federal candidates), but they are silent on matters of state concern (featuring state candidates). For those stations that complied with Target?s request for secrecy, MCFN assigned values based on market-share estimates developed over a decade of data collection. The complexity of determining what was spent on behalf of whom varies with the election year. Presidential election years are the simplest because the only non- federal candidates for statewide office are candidates for the Michigan Supreme Court. As a result, records from 2004 and 2008 are very precise. There were much greater complexities in 2002 and 2010, when issue advertisers, mainly the political parties, were juggling multiple statewide campaigns. Unraveling what amounts were spent on which candidates in those years was accomplished by connecting the candidates to the agencies that produced advertising about them. This was only a minor issue in 2006, when there were heavily favored incumbents running for attorney general, secretary of state and justice of the Supreme Court, and the gubernatorial campaign was absorbing the vast majority of issue-advertising dollars. It should be noted that the amounts spent for television issue advertisements are a conservative representation of unreported political spending. There are also radio issue advertisements, but there are too many radio broadcasters for MCFN to collect their data. There are unreported direct mail advertisements, but the U.S. Postal Service will not disclose its sales records unless there is a case of mail fraud. The activity of the Michigan Republican Party in 2010 illustrates the challenge of capturing all unreported spending. A widely circulated nugget of conventional wisdom in Lansing had it that the Michigan Republican Party raised $28 million in the 2010 cycle2. Yet, the Michigan Republican Party reported only $9 million to the Federal Election Commission and $9.3 million more to the Michigan Department of State. MCFN found $2.8 million worth of Republican Party Supreme Court issue ads and $2.2 million more in the secretary of state and attorney general campaigns, none of which was reported, but that still leaves $4.7 million more for which there is no accounting. 2 The Absence of Accountability Interests in Conflict On one level, an observer might conclude that campaign finance disclosure is an important value in Michigan politics. After all, candidates for state office must identify every donor who makes a contribution to their campaign, even if the contribution is only one dollar. In contrast, contributors to federal campaigns are not identified unless their financial support is at least $200. That impression of commitment to campaign finance accountability would be misguided. Beginning with the 2000 Michigan Supreme Court election campaign, interest groups and individuals have spent almost $70 million for campaign television advertisements that were not disclosed in the State?s campaign finance reporting system. If you recall any political advertisements from the past decade that sought to define a state candidate?s character, qualifications or suitability for office, chances are good that the ads you remember are among those that were never reported. How can that be? The Michigan Department of State doesn?t recognize political advertisements as campaign expenditures unless they explicitly direct a viewer how to vote. If there are no ?magic words? of express advocacy, such as ?vote for,? ?vote against,? ?support,? or ?defeat,? the Department of State sees an advertisement as merely educational, and its sponsors have no obligation to report whose money paid for the message. This willful state of ignorance is based on an interpretation of the Michigan Campaign Finance Act that ignores the language of the statute and critical U.S. Supreme Court campaign finance jurisprudence. It is an affront to the citizens of Michigan who have multiple interests in knowing who pays for political campaigns. This interpretation is the reason that $70 million has been able to go missing in plain view. The first step in correcting this disgraceful situation is to thoroughly understand it. This report, which is the product of ten years of research, is an effort to nurture an understanding of the pathology of campaign finance secrecy that urgently needs to be cured. The interest groups and elite individuals who provide the majority of money that drives state election campaigns are rational economic actors. Their financial support is an investment, and it is naïve to believe that such investments are made for selfless reasons. Returns on political investment may take the form of a workplace regulation, an environmental deregulation, a no-bid contract, a tax credit, a budget priority, a tax not levied, a public works project or a favorable court decision. The returns on political investment vary. The pursuit of them is consistent. At this point in history, most citizens still object to a direct political quid pro quo. Neither a campaign supporter nor an elected official can afford to be seen as a party to the simple buying and selling of public policy. That is why we have limits on contributions to candidates for public office. Contribution limits are meant to be a way of curbing corruption. But when interest groups want to provide more campaign support than the law allows, or society accepts as benign, secrecy provides a path that does not damage the public standing of the campaign supporter or the object of that support. Most citizens? interests are not served by campaign finance secrecy. Citizens have a recognized interest in knowing the sources of campaign finance support, so they can properly evaluate a candidate and cast an informed vote. Citizens? stake in campaign transparency also includes an interest in limiting the opportunity for corrupt conduct. As Justice Louis Brandeis said, ?Sunshine is the best disinfectant.?3 Finally, citizens have a due process interest that is served by campaign transparency. The 2009 U.S. Supreme Court case of Caperton v. Massey Coal Company established that extraordinary campaign spending in support of a judicial candidate by a party to a case that will be heard by that judge introduces a probability of bias that requires the judge to recuse himself from hearing his supporter?s case.4 This interest is particularly relevant for Michiganians. In summary, interest groups and the individuals who have the financial wherewithal to steer election outcomes and, subsequently, the course of public policy, frequently find their interests served by the absence of campaign accountability. The public interest is always served by campaign transparency. In the middle sit the officeholders, dependent on both interest groups and voters. In the absence of pressure from citizens for transparency, the officeholders? inaction on campaign disclosure serves the cause of the interest groups at the expense of the public interest. 3 Michigan Supreme Court Campaigns, 2000-2010: The Invisible Hand in Judicial Campaigns 4 The trajectory of Michigan Supreme Court campaigns has evolved over the last quarter-century from low key, low-dollar contests, to highly financed, coarse-toned, highly secretive contests. The Michigan Supreme Court campaign in 2000 represented a point of radical change. The data in Table 1 show a pre-modern era, prior to the 2000 campaign, when the candidate committees did 90 percent of the campaign spending, virtually all spending was disclosed, and the average spent per seat by all parties was less than $770,000. Review of the individual campaign years? summaries that are shown in Appendix A of this report shows that candidates with greater financial backing won 10 of 18 contests in the pre-modern era, a success rate of 56 percent for the better-funded candidates. In the modern era, beginning with the 2000 campaign, the nature of campaign finances has been dramatically different. For the period from 2000 through 2010, the candidate committees accounted for just 37 percent of overall campaign spending. Just 50.5 percent of all spending was reported in the State?s disclosure system. And the candidates with greater financial backing won 11 of 12 races, a success rate of 92 percent. In the modern era, average spending per seat topped $3.5 million. Some elements of the modern era of Michigan Supreme Court campaigns: ? The 2000 campaign featured six major party candidates collectively raising $6.8 million. Reported independent expenditures totaled $1.5 million. Unreported issue advertising sponsored by the Michigan Democratic Party, the Michigan Chamber of Commerce and the Michigan Republican Party totaled $7.5 million. ? In 2002, the candidates raised a combined total of $964,000 and reported independent expenditures totaled $27,000. The only television issue ad buyer that year, the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, outspent the field of candidates with $1 million in unreported ads. ? In 2004, the candidates raised $1.5 million. Reported independent expenditures totaled just less than $700,000, including $440,000 spent by Geoffrey Fieger to attack incumbent Justice Stephen Markman in a flight of advertisements that were attributed until months after the election to a phony committee called Citizens for Judicial Reform.5 The Michigan Chamber of Commerce, again, was the only issue advertiser with $1.4 million in ads. ? In 2006, the candidates raised $1.1 million, reported independent expenditures totaled $5,000 and the Michigan Chamber of Commerce was the only issue advertiser, spending $844,000. Pre-Modern Era Modern Era Total Total 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 1984-1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2000-2010 $1,181,321 $1,462,306 $295,076 $1,025,046 $1,091,924 $1,353,115 $2,354,106 $3,732,621 $12,495,515 Candidate Committees $6,824,311 $964,342 $1,544,278 $1,087,344 $2,690,495 $2,351,329 $15,462,099 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $50,667 $1,193,232 $76,960 $1,320,859 Independent Expenditures $1,587,829 $27,408 $694,700 $5,223 $1,012,000 $2,485,885 $5,813,045 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Electioneering TV Ads $7,500,000 $1,020,000 $1,377,000 $844,500 $3,804,000 $6,295,000 $20,840,500 $1,181,321 $1,473,650 $295,076 $1,025,046 $1,091,924 $1,403,782 $3,547,338 $3,809,581 $13,827,718 Total Spending $15,912,140 $2,011,750 $3,615,978 $1,937,067 $7,506,495 $11,132,214 $42,115,644 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 18 Number of Seats 3 2 2 2 1 2 12 $393,774 $736,825 $147,538 $512,523 $545,962 $701,891 $1,773,669 $1,269,860 $768,207 Spending per Seat $5,304,047 $1,005,875 $1,807,989 $968,534 $7,506,495 $5,566,107 $3,509,637 Percent Disclosed 52.9% 49.3% 61.9% 56.4% 49.3% 43.5% 50.5% Table 1. Michigan Supreme Court Campaign Finance Summary, 1984-2010 Source: Candidate Committees and Independent Expenditures: Michigan Department of State campaign finance records Electioneering TV Ads: MCFN TV study/Public files of Michigan broadcasters and cable systems ? The 2008 campaign was the only time in the modern era when a candidate with greater financial backing did not win: Then-Third Circuit Court Judge Diane Hathaway defeated incumbent Chief Justice Clifford Taylor. Taylor raised more in his campaign account than Hathaway, $1.9 million to $750,000. Reported independent expenditures narrowly favored Hathaway, $522,000 to $491,000. Issue advertising by the Michigan Republican Party and the Michigan Chamber of Commerce totaled $2.4 million, compared to $1.4 million by the Michigan Democratic Party. Unreported spending was greater than that which was reported, $3.8 million to $3.7 million. ? The 2010 campaign represented a culmination of a sort in the television- dominated modern era of Michigan Supreme Court campaigns: Third Circuit Judge Mary Beth Kelly was the top vote-getter in 2010, and she was the only major party nominee who did not buy television advertising with her own campaign account. The Michigan Republican Party spent $3.4 million for television advertisements supporting Kelly and her fellow Republican nominee, Justice Robert Young, and reported only $650,000 of that amount. Judge Kelly?s campaign committee reported raising just $411,000. The Michigan Republican Party and Michigan Association of Realtors reported independent expenditures of $2.4 million supporting Kelly and Young, compared to $183,000 reported by the Michigan Democratic Party. The Democratic Party spent $2.4 million for unreported attack issue ads directed at Kelly and Young. Overall, unreported spending topped that which was reported, $6.2 million to $5.2 million. The secrecy of campaign finances in the modern era of Supreme Court campaigns matters because it runs contrary to citizens? interests in being able to evaluate candidates in light of their financial supporters. But that interest exists for all elections. What is unique about Supreme Court elections is the citizens? interest in due process of law. In Caperton v. Massey Coal Company, the United States Supreme Court ruled that extraordinary campaign spending in support of a judicial candidate by a party whose litigation will come before the judge he has supported introduces a probability of bias that requires the judge to recuse himself from his campaign supporter?s litigation. But how can a party to a case where due process has been compromised by extraordinary spending even know to ask a justice to recuse if the spending is unreported? The Caperton case illustrates that this is no mere theoretical problem. Campaign spenders are rational economic actors, and no one has greater reason to provide extraordinary support to a justice?s campaign than a party to a high- stakes case in the appeals pipeline.6 5 Pre-Modern Era Modern Era Total Total 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 1984-1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2000-2010 $1,181,321 $1,462,306 $295,076 $1,025,046 $1,091,924 $1,353,115 $2,354,106 $3,732,621 $12,495,515 Candidate Committees $6,824,311 $964,342 $1,544,278 $1,087,344 $2,690,495 $2,351,329 $15,462,099 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $50,667 $1,193,232 $76,960 $1,320,859 Independent Expenditures $1,587,829 $27,408 $694,700 $5,223 $1,012,000 $2,485,885 $5,813,045 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Electioneering TV Ads $7,500,000 $1,020,000 $1,377,000 $844,500 $3,804,000 $6,295,000 $20,840,500 $1,181,321 $1,473,650 $295,076 $1,025,046 $1,091,924 $1,403,782 $3,547,338 $3,809,581 $13,827,718 Total Spending $15,912,140 $2,011,750 $3,615,978 $1,937,067 $7,506,495 $11,132,214 $42,115,644 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 18 Number of Seats 3 2 2 2 1 2 12 $393,774 $736,825 $147,538 $512,523 $545,962 $701,891 $1,773,669 $1,269,860 $768,207 Spending per Seat $5,304,047 $1,005,875 $1,807,989 $968,534 $7,506,495 $5,566,107 $3,509,637 Percent Disclosed 52.9% 49.3% 61.9% 56.4% 49.3% 43.5% 50.5% Table 1. Michigan Supreme Court Campaign Finance Summary, 1984-2010 The gross failure of campaign disclosure in Michigan Supreme Court campaigns creates a toxic cloud that shadows the court?s presumed impartiality. More than anywhere else in Michigan politics, campaign transparency is urgently needed in Supreme Court campaigns. Figure 1 provides a graphical illustration of how campaign finances have changed in Michigan Supreme Court campaigns from the pre-modern era, 1984-1998, to the modern era, 2000-2010. 6 $- $2,000,000 $4,000,000 $6,000,000 $8,000,000 $10,000,000 $12,000,000 $14,000,000 $16,000,000 $18,000,000 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 Michigan Supreme Court Campaign Finance Summary, 1984 - 2010 Candidate Committees Independent Expenditures Electioneering TV Ads Figure 1. 7Michigan Gubernatorial Campaigns, 2002-2010: $42 Million Off the Books Candidate-focused issue advertising first appeared in a Michigan gubernatorial campaign in the 2002 Democratic primary. The St. Clair County Democratic Party bought $1.85 million in ads that sought to define former Gov. James Blanchard and then-Attorney General Jennifer Granholm as unsuitable alternatives to Congressman David Bonior. The ads carefully avoided any reference to voting, and the St. Clair County committee filed campaign finance reports that said that it had neither raised, nor spent, any money to support or oppose a candidate. The data in Table 2 show that issue ads have been an important feature of every gubernatorial campaign since they were introduced. Overall, they have accounted for $42.1 million of $152.8 million spent, or 27.6 percent. By election: ? In the 2002 general election, spending for undisclosed issue ads exceeded reported independent expenditures and candidate spending: $9.8 million to $8.7 million. ? In the 2006 cycle, when neither major party candidate had a primary challenger, issue advertising totaled $18.3 million, including $12.8 million spent by the Michigan Democratic Party. ? In the 2010 Democratic primary, the eventual nominee, Lansing Mayor Virg Bernero, won by 20 points without buying any television advertising from his campaign account. In action reminiscent of 2002, the Genesee County Democratic Party spent $2 million touting Bernero and attacking his opponent, then-House Speaker Andy Dillon. Dillon had $870,000 in issue ad support from groups called Northern Michigan Education Fund and Advance Michigan Now. ? In the 2010 Republican primary, there was $1.2 million of undisclosed television issue advertising supporting then-Attorney General Mike Cox and opposing Mr. Cox?s opponents, particularly Congressman Pete Hoekstra; and $212,000 spent for unreported issue ads to attack Mr. Cox. ? In the 2010 general election, undisclosed television issue advertising exceeded reported independent expenditures and candidate spending, $7.5 million to $6.6 million. The Michigan Democratic Party spent $4.3 million on behalf of Virg Bernero and the Republican Governors Association spent $3.6 million on behalf of now- Gov. Rick Snyder. As in all elections where there is a failure of campaign finance disclosure, the lack of transparency in recent Michigan gubernatorial campaigns deprives voters of an ability to evaluate candidates in light of who is providing their financial support. In addition, there is the unknown effect that unidentified campaign supporters have on an administration?s policy agenda. In one of her final interviews before leaving office, former Gov. Jennifer Granholm told Michigan Public Radio, ?It is utterly ridiculous that there is no disclosure of these third party donations to secret groups that are flooding the airwaves.? She said the unreported spending ?will have incredible sway on the political system, like it or not.?7 As the beneficiary of $20 million worth of undisclosed advertising sponsored by the Michigan Democratic Party, Ms. Granholm?s authority on this matter should not be questioned. She benefitted more from the invisible hand of unreported campaign spending than anyone in the history of Michigan politics. Summaries of 2002, 2006 and 2010 gubernatorial campaigns are displayed in Appendix B of this report. Table 2. Michigan Gubernatorial Campaign Finance Summary, 2002 - 2010 2002 2002 2002 2006 2010 2010 2010 Republican Primary Democratic Primary General Primaries & General Republican Primary Democratic Primary General Election Total Candidate Committees $3,038,811 $11,520,242 $4,717,849 $57,653,709 $15,504,951 $2,593,108 $6,556,423 $101,585,093 Independent Expenditures - 1,222,040 4,005,848 3,089,164 390,841 - 298,568 9,006,461 Electioneering TV Ads - 1,850,000 9,800,000 18,330,000 1,403,000 2,900,000 7,900,000 42,183,000 Total $3,038,811 $14,592,282 $18,523,697 $79,072,873 $17,298,792 $5,493,108 $14,754,991 $152,774,554 Percent Disclosed 100.0% 87.3% 47.1% 76.8% 91.9% 47.2% 46.5% 72.4% Sources: MI Dept of State, MCFN analysis of broadcasters? public files Attorney General and Secretary of State Campaigns: $5.9 Million that Made a Difference Undisclosed issue advertising was an important factor in the 2002 attorney general campaign. The candidates, Democrat Gary Peters and Republican Mike Cox, had similar reported financial backing: $1.1 million for Peters and $1 million for Cox. The Michigan Democratic Party spent $500,000 for issue ads in support of Peters? campaign but, arguably, it was an undisclosed $485,000 ad blitz in the final days of the campaign by the Michigan Chamber of Commerce that boosted Cox to a 5,200-vote win out of three million votes cast. The 2006 attorney general race was not close. Attorney General Mike Cox had almost three times as much campaign cash as his Democratic challenger, Amos Williams: $1.9 million to $700,000. The Michigan Chamber of Commerce spent $500,000 for television issue ads to assist Cox. Cox won that election by more than 10 percentage points. The 2010 attorney general campaign was one that featured extravagant spending on issue ads, even though the eventual winner, Republican Bill Schuette, had a three-to-one fundraising advantage over his Democratic opponent, David Leyton. The candidates raised $2.9 million, reported independent expenditures totaled $209,000, and the political parties and two groups previously unknown in Michigan campaigns, Michigan Advocacy Trust and Law Enforcement Alliance of America, spent $2.6 million for undisclosed issue ads. The 2010 secretary of state campaign was another instance where a winning candidate, Republican Ruth Johnson, won a television-driven campaign without buying any television advertising from her own campaign account. The Michigan Republican Party spent $1.35 million for unreported issue ads attacking Johnson?s Democratic opponent, Jocelyn Benson. Johnson?s campaign account and reported independent expenditures totaled just $755,000. Benson raised $1.1 million in her campaign account and the Michigan Democratic Party spent $465,000 for undisclosed issue ads attacking Johnson. Overall, half the money spent in the campaign was off the books. Campaign finance summaries of attorney general and secretary of state campaigns from 2002, 2006 and 2010 are shown in Appendix C. As electioneering television advertisements have become the blunt instrument of choice in Michigan political campaigns, the Department of State has relied on Supreme Court jurisprudence of the bygone century to steadfastly ignore them. In a position expressed in an interpretive statement issued to Robert LaBrant of the Michigan Chamber of Commerce on April 20, 2004, the Department stated that it does not have the authority to regulate issue ads. It said, it ??must apply the express advocacy standard to avoid constitutional problems,?8 associated with the definition of an expenditure in the Michigan Campaign Finance Act (MCFA). The MCFA defines an expenditure as a ?[A] payment, donation, loan, or promise of payment of money or anything of ascertainable monetary value for goods, material, services, or facilities in assistance of, or in opposition to, the nomination or election of a candidate, or the qualification, passage or defeat of a ballot question. ?The MCFA makes an exclusion in the definition of an expenditure for ?? communication on a subject or issue if the communication does not support or oppose a ballot question or candidate by name or clear inference.?9 To give an example of what this means in practice, consider two examples of advertisements from the 2008 Michigan Supreme Court campaign. The Michigan Republican Party ran an ad that began by saying, ?Newspapers call Diane Hathaway unqualified for the Supreme Court.?10 The Michigan Democratic Party ran ads that said, ?Taylor was voted the worst judge on the state Supreme Court.?11 In the view of the Department of State, neither advertisement carried clear inference of support or opposition of a candidate. There was no reporting of either expenditure, nor reporting by either political party of whose money was used to pay for those ads. The Department of State?s interpretation that clings to the presence of ?magic words? from Buckley to define a campaign expenditure ignores the pivotal 2007 U.S. Supreme Court case of Federal Election Commission (FEC) v. Wisconsin Right to Life (WRTL).12 That case, which was developed to challenge the McCain- Feingold ban against corporate spending on advertisements naming a federal candidate in the weeks immediately preceding an election, also had the effect of recognizing that there is a functional equivalent of express advocacy. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that there can be advertising that names a political candidate that is authentic issue advocacy and not a back-door campaign ad. The court also acknowledged that an authentic campaign ad doesn?t have to have ?magic words.? 8 Ignoring the Blunt Instrument of Michigan Campaigns In reaching its decision in FEC v WRTL, the U.S. Supreme Court considered what constitutes genuine issue advocacy. They asked: Is there a genuine policy matter at stake? Is the advertisement an authentic effort to mobilize grassroots lobbying of a candidate who can affect the policy matter? Is the advertisement an attempt to characterize the candidate?s suitability to hold office? In the case at hand, the court said that the answer to the first two questions was, ?yes,? and the answer to the third question was, ?no.? That made clear that the advertisement was authentic issue advocacy.13 Returning to the previously cited examples from the 2008 Michigan Supreme Court campaign, those advertisements fail the test of authentic issue advocacy on all counts. In Michigan, judges are not lobbyable officials, and the ads most certainly set out to define the candidates? suitability for office. The Department of State?s slavish reliance on Buckley?s magic words of express advocacy as a standard to determine what is, or, is not, a campaign expenditure, creates an enormous failure in the system of campaign finance accountability. U.S. Supreme Court campaign finance jurisprudence has moved forward in the direction of realism. The Michigan Department of State is stuck in the last century. The cost to Michigan voters of ignoring candidate-focused advertising that doesn?t include ?magic words? is represented in Figure 2, the Dashboard of Campaign Finance Accountability, 2010. Overall, just 61 percent of campaign spending for statewide offices was disclosed in 2010, and that average is heavily weighted by the Republican gubernatorial primary that included disclosure of $7 million from just two entities: $6 million in self-funding from Rick Snyder and $1 million in public campaign funds. If the Republican gubernatorial primary is set aside, less than half the spending in statewide campaigns in 2010 was disclosed. The Dashboard of Campaign Finance Accountability clearly shows a civic culture that has sunk to a disgraceful level of ignorance. 9 The Cost of Willful Ignorance Table 3. Statewide Offices? Campaign Finance Summaries, 2010 Gubernatorial Gubernatorial Gubernatorial Attorney General Secretary of State Supreme Court Republican Primary Democratic Primary General Election Total Candidate Committees $2,935,092 $1,799,767 $2,351,329 $15,504,951 $2,593,108 $6,556,423 $31,740,670 Independent Expenditures $209,381 $15,945 $2,485,885 $390,841 $ - $298,568 $3,400,620 Electioneering TV Ads $2,550,000 $1,815,000 $6,295,000 $1,403,000 $2,900,000 $7,900,000 $22,863,000 Total $5,694,473 $3,630,712 $11,132,214 $17,298,792 $5,493,108 $14,754,991 $58,004,290 Sources: MI Dept of State, MCFN analysis of broadcasters? public files Figure 2. Dashboard of Campaign Finance Accountability, 2010 55.2% 50.0% 43.5% 91.9% 47.2% 46.5% 60.6% Attorney General Secretary of State Supreme Court Republican Primary Democratic Primary General Election Total Gubernatorial Gubernatorial Gubernatorial (Percentage Disclosed) A Simple Fix to Restore Integrity Repairing Michigan?s conspicuously failing system of campaign accountability is conceptually simple. The definition of an expenditure in the Michigan Campaign Finance Act must be amended to include electioneering communications. Electioneering communications should be defined to include any broadcast, cable, Internet or telephonic communication that features the name or image of a candidate for state or local office within 60 days of an election involving that candidate. Any committee or corporation that sponsors electioneering communications must disclose the donors whose funds the sponsor is aggregating to pay for its communications. Any committee or corporation that is a contributor to a sponsor of electioneering communications, or a contributor to a contributor, must, in turn, report its donors. No allowance can be given for the ?Russian doll? strategy of hiding donors inside shells. Would this solution have constitutional problems? Absolutely not. The 2010 case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission14 established unequivocally that the Congress, a state legislature or, in a ballot initiative state, the people of a state may require disclosure of donors, whether the communication is express advocacy, the functional equivalent of express advocacy or issue advocacy. The Supreme Court recognized that citizens have an interest in knowing whose money is behind all such communications. Is political accountability a threat to freedom of association? This is a desperate straw that the opponents of political accountability are grasping. They cite the 1958 case of NAACP v. Alabama15 to attempt to justify anonymity for the masters of the campaign finance universe. This argument is clear indication that contemporary politics has no shame. To compare a case where anonymity was needed to protect lives when civil rights workers were being lynched and murdered with campaign spenders? desire to wipe their fingerprints off their expenditures is pathetic, cowardly and entirely inappropriate. The challenge to achieving transparency and accountability for campaign spending is not a matter of ambiguous voters? values. Officeholders know that citizens want campaign transparency. A poll conducted for Inside Michigan Politics by Marketing Resource Group in March 2011 found that 81 percent of Michigan voters favor full disclosure of all electioneering spending and 12 percent oppose disclosure.16 A 2009 poll by Denno-Noor Research commissioned by the Michigan Campaign Finance Network asked voters about the specific case of electioneering disclosure in Supreme Court campaigns and found that 96 percent favor disclosure and only 3 percent oppose it.17 Transparency and accountability are conservative values and they are progressive values. There is no controversy. The challenge is political courage. Officeholders are caught between voters? values and big-money donors? desire for anonymity. Will elected officials of the term limits era stand with citizens against the interest groups who pay their way to the big dance in Lansing? So far, the answer to that $70 million question is, ?No.? Now, the question is, what will the citizens do about it? 10 View Examples of Unreported Campaign Advertisements The Michigan Campaign Finance Network has compiled a small collection of candidate-focused issue ads, so you can see examples of campaign advertistements that were never reported to the Michigan Department of State. Go to www.mcfn.org Endnotes 11 1 Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 44 n.52 (1976) 2 Gongwer News Service, Volume 50, Report 15, Article 6, 1/21/2011 3 Brandeis, Louis D., Other People?s Money?And How the Bankers Use It (1914), Chapter V, par. 1. The famous saying is quoted here as it is most often used. In fact, the original text read ?Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.? 4 Caperton v. Massey Coal Company, 129 S.Ct. at 2264 5 The committee Citizens for Judicial Reform was registered at a nonexistent address with an untraceable treasurer. 6 Massey CEO Don Blankenship provided $3 million to an independent committee called And for the Sake of the Children, which was the main advertising entity in a campaign that resulted in the election of Brent Benjamin to the West Virginia Supreme Court. Benjamin subsequently refused to recuse himself from the Caperton suit and cast the deciding vote in reversing a $50 million damage judgment against Massey. 7 Michigan Public Radio transcript provided by Rick Pluta. 8 http://www.michigan.gov/documents/2004_126239_7.pdf 9 Michigan Compiled Laws 169.206 10 See http://www.mcfn.org/MSC84_10.php, ?Dangerous Rulings? 11 See http://www.mcfn.org/MSC84_10.php, ?The Sleeping Judge? 12 Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, 551 U.S. 449 (2007) 13 FEC v. WRTL, 551 U.S. at 470 14 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010) 15 NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958) 16 Inside Michigan Politics, Vol. XIII, No. 11. March 28,2011 17 Unpublished poll conducted March 9-12, 2009. 600 sample. Margin or error: plus/minus 4%. 12 2010 Candidate Receipts Independent Spenders Amount Electioneering Television Amount Davis, Alton (I) $988,187 MI Democratic Party $106,034 MI Republican Party $2,760,000 Kelly, Mary Beth 418,262 MI Republican Party 1,919,315 Law Enforcement Alliance of America 930,000 Morris, Denise Langford 101,626 MI Assn of Realtors 450,000 MI Democratic Party 2,450,000 Roddis, Bob - RTL of MI 10,536 21 Century Leadership Fund 155,000 Young Jr., Robert P. 843,254 Total $2,485,885 Total $6,295,000 Total $2,351,329 Source: MI Dept of State Source: MCFN analysis of broadcasters? public files Source: MI Dept of State 2008 Candidate Receipts Independent Spenders Amount Electioneering Television Amount Hathaway, Diane Marie $752,736 MI Democratic Party $522,203 MI Democratic Party $1,432,000 Roddis, Robert - MI Republican Party 264,797 MI Chamber of Commerce 1,671,000 Taylor, Clifford W. 1,937,759 Great Lakes Educ Proj 225,000 MI Republican Party 701,000 Total $2,690,495 Total $1,012,000 Total $3,804,000 Source: MI Dept of State Source: MI Dept of State Source: MCFN analysis of broadcasters? public files 2006 Candidate Receipts Independent Spenders Amount Electioneering Television Amount Beckering, Jane $61,269 Republican County Cmtes $1,334 MI Chamber of Commerce $844,500 Cavanagh, Michael F. 316,799 Democratic County Cmtes 1,218 Source: MCFN analysis of broadcasters? public files Corrigan, Maura D. 679,286 RTL of MI 2,671 Morgan, Kerry L. - Total $5,223 Shulman, Marc 29,989 Source: MI Dept of State Total $1,087,343 Source: MI Dept of State 2004 Candidate Receipts Independent Spenders Amount Electioneering Television Amount Kelly, Marilyn $728,800 MI Democratic Party $36,862 MI Chamber of Commerce $1,377,000 Markman, Stephen J 721,978 Geoffrey Fieger (CJR) 440,000 Source: MCFN analysis of broadcasters? public files Schwartz, Leonard 2,847 MI Republican Party 177,032 Thomas, Deborah 68,374 Republican County Cmtes 1616 Zahra, Brian 22,279 RTL of MI 39,190 Total $1,544,278 Total $694,700 Source: MI Dept of State Source: MI Dept of State 2002 Candidate Receipts Independent Spenders Amount Electioneering Television Amount Brennan, J. Martin $11,549 MI Democratic Party $15,594 MI Chamber of Commerce $1,020,000 Donahue, Michael - MI Republican Party 6,480 Source: MCFN analysis of broadcasters? public files Drake, Maggie 44,025 Republican County Cmtes 424 Hadden, Donnelly 5,915 RTL of MI 4,910 Weaver, Elizabeth A. 280,440 Total $27,408 Young, Robert P., Jr. 622,413 Source: MI Dept of State Yuille, Bruce - Total $964,342 Source: MI Dept of State 2000 Candidate Receipts Independent Spenders Amount Electioneering Television Amount Robinson, Marietta S. $1,195,683 MI Democratic Party $366 MI Chamber of Commerce $3,400,000 Roddis, Robert - MI Republican Party 1,350,385 MI Democratic Party 3,400,000 Taylor, Clifford W. 1,332,975 Ann Arbor PAC 208,200 MI Republican Party 700,000 Markman, Stephen J. 1,244,502 Dem. Justice Caucus 28,878 Total $7,500,000 Raaflaub, David - Total $1,587,829 Source: MCFN television advertising study Thomas, Edward M. 1,008,420 Source: MI Dept of State Fitzgerald, E. Thomas 750,539 Kaufman, Jerry - Young, Robert P., Jr. 1,292,192 Total $6,824,311 Source: MI Dept of State 1998 Candidate Receipts Independent Spenders Amount Abel, Mathew $- MI Democratic Party $33,036 Borman, Susan D. 663,183 MI Republican Party 43,924 Cavanagh, Michael F. 255,073 Total $76,960 Collins, Jeffrey G. 202,163 Source: MI Dept of State Corrigan, Maura D. 1,033,339 Kaufman, Jerry J. - Raaflaub, David H. - Taylor, Clifford W. 986,566 Youngblood, Carole F. 592,297 Total $3,732,621 Source: MI Dept of State Appendix A. Summaries of Michigan Supreme Court Campaigns, 1984 - 2010 Election winners in bold type. Appendix A. Summaries of Michigan Supreme Court Campaigns, 1984 - 2010 13 1996 Candidate Receipts Independent Spenders Amount Brickley, James H. $228,977 MI Democratic Party $387,785 Cooper, Jessica 148,931 MI Republican Party 551,273 Gage, Hilda R. 723,570 Justice for MI Citizens 103,788 Kaufman, Jerry J. - MI State Victory Cmte 150,386 Kelly, Marilyn 553,274 Total $1,193,232 Murphy, William B. 699,354 Source: MI Dept of State Raaflaub, David H. - Total $2,354,106 Source: MI Dept of State 1994 Candidate Receipts Independent Spenders Amount Griffin, Richard A. $198,178 MI Democratic Party $50,668 Killeen, George 63,940 Source: MI Dept of State Mallett, Conrad L., Jr. 374,101 Shelton, Donald E. 519,901 Weaver, Elizabeth A. 196,995 Total $1,353,115 Source: MI Dept of State 1992 1990 1988 Candidate Receipts Candidate Receipts Candidate Receipts Kelly, Marilyn $108,949 Boyle, Patricia J. $430,388 Brickley, James H. $120,492 Riley, Dorothy Comstock 241,038 Cavanagh, Michael F. 263,926 Johnston, Richard 3,025 Roddis, Robert W. - Durant, Clark 314,842 Kaufman, Jerry J. 1,500 Kaufman, Jerry J. - Hahn, Charles - Levin, Charles L. 82,664 Mallett, Conrad L., Jr. 451,776 Hughes, Judy M. 15,890 Stempien, Marvin 87,395 Talbot Michael 290,162 Kaufman, Jerry J. - Warbier, Donald - Total $1,091,925 Total $1,025,046 Total $295,076 Source: MI Dept of State Source: MI Dept of State Source: MI Dept of State Source: MI Dept of State Source: MI Dept of State 1986 1984 Candidate Receipts Candidate Receipts Archer, Dennis W. $450,817 Boyle, Patricia J. $347,634 Carras, James J. - Brickley, James H. 145,830 Clay, Henry - Griffin, Robert P. 209,542 Collison, Jeffrey C. - Hathaway, James A. 121,407 Ferency, Zolton 19,397 Kavanagh, Thomas Giles 109,542 Ferrara, Andrea J. - Raaflaub, David H. - Fitzgerald, E. Thomas 17,193 Riley, Dorothy Comstock 247,366 Griffin, Robert P. 320,007 Roddis, Robert W. - Howarth, E. Leonard - Total $1,181,321 Kallman, James T. 74,323 Source: MI Dept of State Kaufman, Jerry J. 945 Kelley, James J. 16,875 Korn, Stephen P. - MacKenzie, Barbara B. 15,151 Marutiak, Michael Joseph - McDonough, John J. - Mikesell, Willard L 575 O'Hara, John P., Jr. 1,050 Paunovich, Melvin L. - Robb, Dean 488,600 Simon, Caleb M. - Simon, Michael F. - Stelt, James R. - Weiss, Robert E.* 68,717 Total $1,473,650 Source: MI Dept of State Election winners in bold type. Appendix B. Summaries of Michigan Gubernatorial Campaigns, 2002 - 2010 14 2010 General Candidate Receipts Independent Spenders Amount Electionering Television Amount Bernero, Virg $2,215,193 MI Republican Party $241,195 Republican Governors Assn $3,600,000 Snyder, Rick 4,341,230 MI Democratic Party 17,949 MI Democratic Party $4,300,000 Total $6,556,423 Working America 39,424 Total $7,900,000 Source: MI Dept of State Total $298,568 Source: MCFN analysis of broadcasters? public files Source: MI Dept of State 2010 Republican Primary Bouchard, Mike $1,420,260 Independent Spenders Amount Electionering Television Amount Cox, Mike 3,641,486 RTL MI PAC $75,241 Americans for Job Security $755,000 George, Tom 472,802 MI Businesses United 315,600 Fdn. for Secure & Prosperous Am. $215,000 Hoekstra, Pete 1,927,288 Total $390,841 MI Chamber of Commerce $268,000 Snyder, Rick 8,043,115 Source: MI Dept of State MI Taxpayers Alert $165,000 Total $15,504,951 Total $1,403,000 Source: MI Dept of State Source: MCFN analysis of broadcasters? public files 2010 Democratic Primary Candidate Receipts Independent Spenders Amount Electionering Television Amount Bernero, Virg $1,166,656 Genesee County Democratic Party $2,025,000 Dillon, Andy 1,426,452 Advance Michigan Now $445,000 Total $ 2,593,108 Northern Michigan Education Fund $430,000 Source: MI Dept of State Total $2,900,000 Source: MCFN analysis of broadcasters? public files 2006 Primary & General Candidate Receipts Independent Spenders Amount Electionering Television Amount DeVos, Dick $42,550,955 MI Democratic Party $319,687 MI Democratic Party $12,840,000 Granholm, Jennifer 15,718,935 Coalition for Progress 1,655,543 MI Republican Party $1,300,000 Total $58,269,890 Emily?s List 965,390 Republican Governors Assn $2,620,000 Source: MI Dept of State America Votes 5,164 MI Chamber of Commerce $1,000,000 MI Republican Party 2,980 Coalition for Traditional Values $570,000 National RTL - MI 130,986 Total $18,330,000 RTL MI 9,414 Source: MCFN analysis of broadcasters? public files Total $3,089,164 Source: MI Dept of State 2002 General Election Candidate Receipts Independent Spenders Amount Electionering Television Amount Granholm, Jennifer $2,494,734 MI Republican Party $3,494,542 MI Democratic Party $7,200,000 Posthumus, Dick 2,223,115 RTL MI 237,955 MI Republican Party $1,100,000 Total $4,717,849 Safari Club Int?l 14,897 MI Chamber of Commerce $1,100,000 Source: MI Dept of State Nat?l Rifle Assn 3,998 Total $9,400,000 Citizens for Trad. Values 8,501 Source: MCFN analysis of broadcasters? public files MI Democratic Party 203,799 Planned Parenthood 6,895 MI Education Assn 12,238 Citizens for Public Educ. 23,023 Total $4,005,848 Source: MI Dept of State 2002 Republican Primary Candidate Receipts Independent Spenders Amount Electionering Television Amount Posthumus, Dick $2,722,154 Schwarz, Joe 518,657 Total $3,240,811 Source: MI Dept of State 2002 Democratic Primary Candidate Receipts Independent Spenders Amount Electionering Television Amount Blanchard, Jim $2,180,527 Citizens for Responsible St. Clair County Democratic Party $1,850,000 Bonior, David 2,258,129 Leadership $1,220,362 Source: MCFN analysis of broadcasters? public files Granholm, Jennifer 7,081,586 10th Dist Dem Cmte 3,678 Total $11,520,242 Total $1,224,040 Source: MI Dept of State Source: MI Dept of State Election winners in bold type. 15 Appendix C. Summaries of Michigan Attorney General and Secretary of State Campaigns, 2002 - 2010 2010 Attorney General Candidate Receipts Independent Spenders Amount Electionering Television Amount Leyton, David $714,080 MI Republican Party $200,580 MI Democratic Party $450,000 Schuette, Bill 2,221,012 RTL MI 5,300 MI Republican Party 800,000 Total $2,935,092 MI Democratic Party 1,381 MI Advocacy Trust 1,000,000 Source: MI Dept of State Coalition for Progress 2,120 Law Enforcement Alliance Am 300,000 Total $209,381 Total $2,550,000 Source: MI Dept of State Source: MCFN analysis of broadcasters? public files 2010 Secretary of State Candidate Receipts Independent Spenders Amount Electionering Television Amount Benson, Jocelyn $1,084,817 MI Republican Party $9,262 MI Democratic Party $465,000 Johnson, Ruth 714,950 RTL MI 5,302 MI Republican Party 1,350,000 Total $1,799,767 MI Democratic Party 1,381 Total $1,815,000 Source: MI Dept of State Total $15,945 Source: MCFN analysis of broadcasters? public files Source: MI Dept of State 2006 Attorney General Candidate Receipts Independent Spenders Amount Electionering Television Amount Cox, Mike $1,938,740 MI Republican Party $743 MI Chamber of Commerce $500,000 Williams, Amos 671,083 MI Democratic Party 28,206 Source: MCFN analysis of broadcasters? public files Total $2,609,823 Total $28,949 Source: MI Dept of State Source: MI Dept of State 2006 Secretary of State Candidate Receipts Independent Spenders Amount Electionering Television Amount Land, Terri Lynn $1,218,193 Republican Party Cmtes $1,697 Sabaugh, Carmella 192,528 MI Democratic Party 41,737 Total $1,410,721 Secretary of State Project 4,647 Source: MI Dept of State Total $48,081 Source: MI Dept of State 2002 Attorney General Candidate Receipts Independent Spenders Amount Electionering Television Amount Cox, Mike $915,042 MI Republican Party $3,289 MI Chamber of Commerce $485,000 Peters, Gary 1,136,366 RTL - MI 2,296 MI Democratic Party 500,000 Total $2,051,408 Great Lakes Educ. Project 63,419 Total $985,000 Source: MI Dept of State Nat?l Rifle Ass. 2,371 Source: MCFN analysis of broadcasters? public files MI Democratic Party 7,797 Total $79,172 Source: MI Dept of State 2002 Secretary of State Candidate Receipts Independent Spenders Amount Electionering Television Amount Hollowell, Butch $696,040 West MI Leadership Caucus $359,880 Land, Terri Lynn 2,092,829 MI Republican Party 2,513 Total $2,788,869 RTL - MI 2,296 Source: MI Dept of State MI Democratic Party 7,797 Total $372,486 Source: MI Dept of State Election winners in bold type. ?Requiring people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed.? Justice Antonin Scalia, Doe v. Reed (2010) Michigan Campaign Finance Network 200 Museum Drive, Lansing, MI 48933 Phone: (517) 482-7198 | Email: mcfn@mcfn.org | Web: www.mcfn.org