DENVER—One TV ad shows a hippie making fun of the Democratic candidate in Colorado’s Senate race for supporting a Department of Peace. On the other side, Internet commercials lambast his Republican opponent as a cartoon cowboy riding an oil well.
Negative campaigning by the candidates? Nope. They’re coming from hard-to-pin-down advocacy groups that are pouring millions into Colorado’s open Senate race. The groups take pointed jabs at candidates they hope to defeat—but it’s almost impossible for voters to figure out where the messages are coming from.
It’s an aspect of modern campaigning that’s hitting Colorado hard this year because of the state’s tossup presidential status and Senate contest. According to disclosure documents filed with the Colorado secretary of state, the advocacy groups, sometimes called “527s” or “C4s” after federal tax codes, raked in millions of dollars in donations just last quarter.
Where does all that money go? Much of it to television and radio ads and political mailings that appear to come from a candidate but actually are sent by groups listed in fine print. The groups don’t have the same fundraising limits candidates do, and they lavish money on ads in hopes of swaying voters.
“It will just seem endless,” Denver media consultant Eric Sondermann, who doesn’t work in political campaigns, said of the ads in the Senate contest between Republican Bob Schaffer and Democrat Mark Udall. “Voters are going to want to shoot their televisions by November.”
A conservative “C4” called Freedom’s Watch aired one ad that shows a hippie outside a smoke-filled, 1960s-era van and poking fun at Udall for supporting a proposal in the U.S. House to create a Department of Peace. The proposal never made it to a vote.
An anti-Schaffer Web site operated by a liberal “C4” called ProgressNowAction calls Schaffer “Big Oil Bob” and features a cartoon of him riding an oil pump to decry his acceptance of campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry while he was in Congress.
It’s not exactly highbrow stuff. But the question is how much influence these advocate attack ads may have in a Senate race that’s among the nation’s most competitive. Schaffer and Udall are vying to replace GOP Sen. Wayne Allard, who is retiring.
“Voters hate negative ads. But the undecided voters, the 15 percent, are sometimes swayed,” said Robert Stern, president of the Los Angeles-based Center for Governmental Studies, a nonpartisan group that studies campaign finance.
Advocacy groups can spend limitless amounts of money because they ostensibly do not exist to support or oppose a campaign. But the distinction between campaign attacks and so-called “independent expenditure” groups is difficult for even political insiders to make.
“It’s really a tissue-paper distinction, where they aren’t expressly supporting or opposing a candidate but making sure voters think about certain issues,” said Richard Briffault, a law professor at the Columbia School of Law who studies campaign finance laws.
The confusion can frustrate voters—and candidates, too.
“They’re massive distractions in a political race,” Schaffer said. “The involvement in campaigns is now more determined by interest groups than it is by the candidates.”
Udall has sent cease-and-desist letters to TV and radio stations about three ads Udall considers false. The ads still ran.
Udall aides insist voters aren’t swayed by the interest-group ads. But there is confusion. Voters have called Udall’s campaign headquarters to complain about Schaffer attack ads they thought originated there.
“I don’t think they know who’s putting them out,” said Udall spokeswoman Tara Trujillo, who said the Udall campaign has tallied more than $6 million spent just last month on Udall attack ads coming not from Schaffer but from independent expenditure groups.
The groups themselves, not surprisingly, argue they’re playing a valid role.
“We’re like a 24-7 war room where we’re looking to educate voters,” said Michael Hutter, executive director of Denver-based ProgressNowAction.
Some want clearer rules for advocacy groups weighing in on an election.
Colorado Ethics Watch, a watchdog group in Denver, filed suit last week against two conservative advocacy groups it believes sent improper campaign mailers in some state races. Because of those mailers, and the confusing nature of independent expenditure advertising, Ethics Watch says it’s too easy for groups to break campaign rules now and pay any fines later, after they’ve influenced an election.
“They figure, ‘We’ll hire big lawyers later but the damage will have been done,'” said Colorado Ethics Watch director Chantell Taylor. “These groups are not on the up-and-up.”
A manager with one of the groups sued by Ethics Watch, the Senate Majority Fund, said campaign finance law is impossible to figure.
“Compliance laws are not clear anywhere,” said Scott Shires, whose group has not weighed in on the Schaffer-Udall race.
Despite lawsuits and plenty of complaints, Colorado voters should expect more of the same until November.
“They’ve already ramped up. And they’ll ramp up further, no doubt about it,” Sondermann said.
———
On the Net:
Search Colorado campaign finance reports:
