Money, money, money

It's that time of year again, you know, the leaves are changing, football's on, and if you're watching TV, you're getting inundated with campaign ads. A lot of those ads, they're from Republicans who are planning to spend a lot of money in the next couple weeks. Will it matter? It's the NPR Politics Podcast. I'm Myles Parks. I cover voting. I'm Ashley Lopez. I cover politics. And I'm Tamara Keith. I also cover politics. And Tam, let's just start with the numbers. Walk us through the financial landscape for both parties as we head into the kind of key midterm season. Yeah, let's talk about ad spending, or rather, reservations. So this is money we expect them to spend on ads between September 1st and Election Day. And I'm getting all of this information from Ad Impact, which is a tracking firm that tracks advertising. And the numbers are pretty similar. Stunning. Right now, based on reservations between now and Election Day, Republicans are set to outspend Democrats on air nationwide, up and down the ballot, by about $360 million. Now, these are just reservations, and those can change. They can move money around. They can add more, and I expect that they will. Okay, so $360 million. That's the difference between how much Republicans spend on ads between September 1st and Election Day. Republicans are expected to spend at this point, compared to Democrats. Yes. And so that is in ad spending. And just to give you a little more detail on where some of that is coming from, President Trump and his allied super PACs, that's MAGA Inc., and then some new ones that have sprung up, including something called No Going Back PAC and Safety and Affordability PAC. They have a less Trumpy name than MAGA Inc. But all told, combined, they have $130 million. $135 million worth of ad spending booked between now and Election Day, and most of that is in the next few weeks. So it's really, really significant. It is a lot of money. So talk to me a little bit more about where this money is getting spent, then. Well, it's interesting, because it's the obvious swing states and swing races, the places where you'd expect it to be spent. But they're also spending money, on a lot of Republican territory, places that President Trump won quite easily in 2024. That includes the Ohio Senate race, which is getting a lot of spending, the Texas Senate race, which is getting just an absolute ton of spending. And Republicans are vastly outspending Democrats there. A lot of this is reaching into very red areas, very Republican areas. Congressional districts, Senate races, where, you know, in a different year, but this is not a different year, in a different year, Republicans wouldn't have to spend any money or very little money on Texas. And they're going to be spending just an absolute boatload of money on Texas. It has to be strange for you, Ashley, as somebody who lived in Texas to hear all of this money flowing in to help Republicans there. Look, this is a five-alarm fire for Republicans. They have to start spending money because the polls have been so bad. Week after week, the situation has been looking more dire for them, including in Texas, which, yes, is surprising. I mean, this is a state that's had uniparty control for over three decades. Republicans have been shutting out Democrats of all statewide office for a very long time. But the atmosphere right now, the situation that Republicans find themselves coming into November is very dire. And, you know, they are very well positioned with money, but they are not well positioned on topics. They do have some advantages, besides money, which is we've talked about redistricting a lot. They have, you know, especially when you look at the congressional map, they have given themselves a little bit of an edge that they didn't have otherwise. But, you know, if you look at how independents in particular are shifting so dramatically towards the Democrats, I think this is not surprising when you look at what Republicans are facing. And, Ashley, the crazy thing is how much money Republicans are having to spend in districts that were redrawn. To be safe Republican seats. Districts that were redrawn to favor Republicans and are now rated as toss-ups in Texas and Florida. Well, Miles and I talked about this before, but when they started redistricting, the big worry that everyone had was, hey, these were already, in a lot of these Republican states, these were already pretty safe seats. If you are fudging it so that, you know, changing the line so you get a little bit of edge here and there, that's guesswork. You are looking at data from, you know, two years ago, four years ago. You do not know what that district looks like right now. You can make, you know, we have pretty good technology. But the worry was always that you are going to make seats that you change less safe because you have to change the lines from like a pretty safe seat to a less safe seat to make this other seat that wasn't as safe more safe. It is, you're moving around voters, you're moving around lines. It is something that Republicans were warning, you know, these state legislatures about well before they finalized their maps. This was always going to be risky business because, and I mean, it's worth remembering, all of those special elections that have been taking place in the months leading up to this election, Republicans have been underperforming across the country. I want to zoom in on Texas for one more moment here, Tam, because I'm a little interested hearing this idea that Republicans are going to be outspending Democrats in this state over the next couple of weeks. It's surprising to me because the Democratic candidate there, James Talrico, has been everywhere this year. I feel like he's been on huge podcasts, he's been on national TV. He has been a successful fundraiser. That was my understanding. So I guess, could you help me understand how this candidate who is ostensibly raising a lot of money is kind of going to be swamped in the state? Yes, let me explain that. And this is really interesting. James Talrico, as you say, has raised a ton of money. And when candidates raise money, they are not getting gigantic checks. They're getting a lot of small donations. They can't get a million dollar check based on campaign finance laws like a super PAC can. So where is the money coming from in Texas? Texas PAC, it's a super PAC that is affiliated with basically Senate Republicans. It is set to spend between now and Election Day $65 million on air. James Talrico is the number two highest spender in this race. This is all according to Ad Impact, with $65 million on air. He's got $24 million, which is a lot of money. But then you add Lone Star Liberty, MAGA PAC, all of these other super PACs, and he's absolutely getting swamped. And that's also because he is able to raise less money, right, than these super PACs are legally, right? Right. Legally, super PACs can just, you know, say, pull up the money truck and dump it in. And it's not the same for a candidate. Now, candidates do have an advantage. Traditionally, they've been able to get better rates on advertising than these outside groups. And that is certainly the case here. So his $24 million gets more bang for the buck than Texas PAC's $65 million, for instance. Yeah. And I think it's worth remembering that part of the reason Republicans are having to spend so much on this race is that not too long ago, there was a pretty bruising Republican primary race. And remember, I also went to a runoff. And it's worth remembering, you know, Ken Paxson is one of the most scandal-plagued candidates in recent memory. He's been the state's attorney general for many years. And in that time, he was impeached by the Texas House, which is run by Republicans, so members of his own party, on a slew of charges that include things like alleged bribery, abusive office. I mean, he was acquitted by the Texas Senate, so he wasn't removed from office. But, you know, Paxson was also indicted on securities, fraud charges when he was the attorney general, like very early in his career there. It is a really, really tough record to run on. So they have a lot of ground to make up and not a lot of time. So if you have a money truck to back up, I mean, Texas is a place to back it up. Ken Paxson was basically outspent on the air first by John Cornyn in the Republican primary, who absolutely beat him up. And then by James Tallarico, who has been spending over the summer, sort of introducing himself to voters. And, you know, so Paxson was outspent for a very long time. And then the cavalry arrived, as Republican operative Scott Jennings put it to me, right around Labor Day with just a massive amount of outside groups booking ads starting to spend in Texas and pretty much everywhere else. And this is what he told me to expect. Some of these ads are going to be ugly and it's going to be a pretty negative campaign. But that's the nature of a midterm when you've got an environment like the one that the Republicans are facing. And honestly, I think the resources are going to allow them to win some of these races. Well, that's so interesting, Tam. He's basically saying like all of this money is going to mudslinging, that this is not going to be some positive campaign, but that this is going to be all trying to hammer these Democratic candidates. Yeah. I mean, what he said is like this basically gives Republicans the ability to have a message. It gives them the ability to try to make this a little easier. election a choice between two candidates to try to disqualify the Democrats instead of it simply being a referendum on the president. Yeah. And I mean, let's see how effective that is, right? Like Republicans really don't have anything to run on right now because the economy is in the toilet. This war in Iran is this albatross around the party's neck. It's going to be really hard for them to pick something positive to, you know, point to that is that they can, you know, inspire voters to run on. And so it forces them into this posture of having to mudsling, having to, you know, frame Democrats as being, you know, we've already seen it as radicals, communists, whatever. That's kind of like it's an old hat, but it's kind of the only card they can play right now. And, you know, we have seen there's been polling and research in the past that negative ads only only help you so much, really, because, you know, there's evidence that, yes, it hurts the candidate that it's aimed at, but it also hurts the candidate that's pushing a negative message. It's like kind of a pox on both their houses. Voters hate that stuff. And if you're in one of these states that's getting inundated with ads, we also know that voters hate that, you know, like it's really obnoxious every time you turn on your TV on any of the streaming services you're using. If you don't pay for no ads, you are going to hear from the people. Yeah. And it's going to be and we'll see how effective that is, if that's something that resonates with voters. I mean, there is we could get into more about like who's even left up for grabs right now. Who this would work on. But it is an open question how how effective this will be. And I do want to get into that. But just right after a break, we'll be right back. And we're back. So, Ashley, I do want to get into this question of is this money going to matter or how much is this money going to matter? What are your thoughts on that? Well, look, this kind of money probably only works in the margins. But when you have close elections, which these are expected to be in a lot of cases, that matters. And, you know, believe it or not, I know for folks who listen to the NPR politics podcast, this does not apply to you. But there are people who have not been paying attention to this race yet. They do not know who they're voting for. I hear them every month. Folks who are in swing states, they're like some of the most powerful voters in the country and they still don't know how they're going to vote. So there's a lot of people who vote like that and who kind of wait for the last month to see if they're even going to vote. They're just kind of hoping they get inspired to closer to when voting happens. So, you know, this could help. For people who are still on the fence, some of these swing voters, some of these independent voters, people who aren't entirely sure even if they're going to vote, this helped Trump during the presidential election. I think there was a lot of reporting that came out about how effective he was at messaging and getting low propensity voters out. But the problem is you cannot bank on those voters. And, you know, a lot of these voters have been economy voters. Their biggest issue has been the economy. So who knows if an ad is going to be enough to sway a voter who kind of checks in right close up to an election and doesn't otherwise pay attention. They probably don't know what's happening in the news, but they know that their economic situation is not that great. So who knows how effective one of those ads is going to be. So, you know, if you're overdrafting your checking account, the idea that somebody coming on an ad in the middle of a football game is going to change your mind or get you inspired is probably less likely. Very unlikely. And what's more likely to happen is that it will annoy you now enough to vote for the other team to vote for a clear one to one. Not all these voters are probably going to vote for Democrats. But I think a lot of those low propensity voters that showed up to support Donald Trump in 2024 are not going to show up for the midterms. And that is, I think, where the Trump administration and Republicans, that is probably where they want to kind of lessen the losses that they're expecting. Yeah. And a lot of these ads are on sort of social, cultural issues, so-called wedge issues that are designed to make Democrats seem out of touch, to make them seem dangerous, you know, to make voters say, gosh, well, gas is more than four dollars a gallon and diesel is 650. But yeah, I don't know. I don't think I could vote for a Democrat, even though I'm really mad about how expensive things are. So that's the idea. I talked to a Democratic consultant about this named Jesse Ferguson. He's worked in a lot of campaigns over the years. And his sense, as Ashley says, it certainly can make a difference around the edges. You certainly would rather have this money than not. But Democrats are just in a much better position in terms of the political climate. Money can't change the weather, but it can be an umbrella for them going into this election. It can help insulate them, but it can't change the fundamentals of what voters are feeling. And voters are feeling grumpy with the party in power. Right. And I guess this is the other disconnect that I'm interested in your thoughts on, Tam, is if all of the fundamentals are kind of moving in Democrats' favor and people are grumpy, as you said, with the Republican Party in power, why have Republicans been so much more successful at fundraising? Well, Republicans are the party in power. And as Jesse Ferguson put it, the president is incredibly transactional. That means that these super PACs are able to raise a lot of money from people who want to curry favor with the president of the United States, who want the president to be receptive to their issue. President Trump has been holding fundraisers. He held another one last week for MAGA Inc. MAGA Inc. went from $3 million in the bank in the last period to this most recent reporting period, having $415 million in the bank. And they're spending a lot of money. So super PACs can raise a ton of money. President Trump is a very effective fundraiser because people want to make him happy and he is in power and he makes all of the decisions for this government at this point. And also, Democrats aren't really that happy with the Democratic Party. They're not really that happy with the establishment or the party infrastructure. So they're giving money directly to candidates. But, you know, the money truck isn't pulling up to Democrats in the same way. Yeah. And I think this is a disconnect that we've been seeing for quite a long time now. You know, if you were to look at polling when there were the midterms during Joe Biden's presidency, you would have thought that that red wave was going to be a tsunami. But the Democrats overperformed despite the fact that everyone was really upset with Democrats including Democrats as well. And this has kind of been continuing for a while now, because if you look at polling on just the Democratic brand, some individual Democratic leaders, you would think Democrats are really in for a hard fight. But if you look at things like the generic ballot, when you look at just likely voters, people who are really inspired to vote and are likely to vote, the Democrats are overperforming. Democrats have been also overperforming in special elections, as I mentioned. And that has everything to do with the fact that the party brand and leaders does not always reflect what is actually happening ahead of an election. So the atmosphere overall is a lot better for Democrats than it looks on these metrics. And so, yeah, that's a big reason why you see a candidate like James Tallarico raising a lot of small donor money. But yeah, the DNC and the DCCC, they're not doing as well because people and most importantly, Democratic voters don't like their leadership. But that doesn't mean that, you know, I don't think it reflects exactly what's going to happen in the election. Yeah. Last thing before we go is whenever we talk about campaign spending, I know that the Supreme Court has made a lot of decisions over the last 20 years that impact all of this, just the entire kind of money in politics ecosystem. Can you explain that? I guess when you look at what we're talking about here, Ashley, what decisions do you think about that that are playing a role here? I mean, there's a lot. The Supreme Court is probably the biggest reason that corporations and the wealthy in America have, so much influence over elections. I think people like to think that all blame belongs to Congress. But when I point out to people that in modern history, twice, Congress has passed bipartisan campaign finance reform once in the 70s and then in the early aughts. And then each time the Supreme Court said, no, we believe that campaign spending amounts to free speech. And they have used that precedent to really open up the ability for corporations to spend money on things like ballot measures. They have used that precedent to really open up the ability for corporations to spend money on things like ballot measures. They also have lifted a lot of contribution limits and spending limits. So really, there are very few and every year there are even fewer rules about how very wealthy corporations can spend money in elections. And as we saw in 2024, people like Elon Musk, they have been also able to spend a lot of money on some of these big super PACs. And it's also worth saying that the FEC, the Federal Elections Commission, hasn't had a quorum in over a year. So any regulatory process is going to have to be done. And I think that's going to power over how campaign money is spent is very limited right now. One thing that has happened most recently is there was a Supreme Court decision that said that the party committees, so this is like the DNC, the RNC, you know, the alphabet soup of party committees, official party committees, they can now coordinate with candidates, and they get the same ad rates as candidates. So for months, we were talking about how Democrats were were vastly, the candidates were vastly outraising Republicans, which still holds. But now you just add all of this party money to that pile and they get the same ad rates. They can coordinate. And Democrats have really been outraised by the Republican Party committees. All right. Well, we can leave it there for today. I'm sure after the election, there's going to be a lot of discussion over where all this money is going and whether it works. We will have that discussion here on the pod as well at that point. I'm Miles Parks. I cover voting. I'm Ashley Lopez. I cover politics. And thank you for listening to the NPR Politics Podcast.