Media, money bigger than ever in politics.

Hellinger, Daniel

Missouri has emerged as a battle-ground state in the November election, and no one stands to benefit more than the state's radio and television industry. According the Washington Post, the bill for the national elections of 1996 was $2.7 billion. All indications are that the 2000 elections will far surpass that amount. Congressional fundraising and spending alone are running more than a third ahead of the pace of four years ago. A rough extrapolation from the current state of major campaign war-chests suggests that the election spending in Missouri could easily surpass $50 million.

Make no mistake about it, it is media which drives politicians' lust for campaign contributions. Anywhere from 40 to 60 percent of money spent by candidates for federal and state-wide offices will be for television and radio advertising.

Much of the money spent locally will be raised out-of-state. Deirdre Shes-green reported in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that four of the GOP suitors of the second district nomination had flown to Washington to woo out-of-state contributors. One of them, State Senator Frank Flotron says the high cost of television advertising is the reason he and others pursue capital bigwigs, even if the advertising itself aims to convince voters that the candidate is a Washington outsider.. "Candidates who don't come to Washington don't win," explained Flotron.

The communications industry has been active on the giving as well as the receiving end. The industry needs access to politicians to influence major decisions on regulation of the Internet, cross-ownership of media properties, mega-mergers and censorship. In addition, public pressure to curb the influence of money in politics has spawned interest in forcing radio and television to make free air time available to candidates as part of the solution. Nothing could be further from the minds of station owners.

National media have been fixated on the New York senatorial battle between First Lady Hillary Clinton and New York Mayor Ralph Guiliani. The withdrawal of Guiliani will not change that. Deeper in the recesses of their print and electronic pages, newspapers and Internet news sites have acknowledged that the Missouri race offers an even more polarized ideological choice for voters and may provide a better signal of the sentiment of the national electorate.

Whether the issue is abortion, tax policies, education, environment, labor or religion in the schools, Governor Mel Carnahan and incumbent Senator John Ashcroft differ about as much as any two major candidates might in this era of political inertia. The same can safely be said about the gubernatorial race between State Treasurer Governor Bob Holden for the Democrats against Representative Jim Talent for the GOP.

Missouri is attracting an inordinate share of attention for other reasons too: a presidential debate scheduled for Washington University in September; a controversial state finance law limiting donations to candidates was found constitutional by the U. S. Supreme Court in January; and rumors that former Senator John Danforth is high on Governor George W. Bush's list of potential running mates. All have helped to hype the state's place on the national scene.

Races ignored by TV and radio

The Carnahan and Ashcroft campaigns had together amassed more than $9.24 million by the end of 1999, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP). It seemed likely to far surpass the $10 million observers originally expected their campaigns to raise. Carnahan ranked tenth and Ashcroft eighth, respectively, in the March list of contributions recorded by the Federal Election Commission (FEC).

Through March 31, the Missouri candidates for seats in the U.S. House of Representatives had raised $7.9 million. House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt had raised $2.1 million of that total, but he has spent much of his money supporting other Democratic House candidates around the country. The bulk of advertising money spent on local House races is likely to come from candidates in the first and second congressional districts, where there are open seats.

In the first district, by late 1999, Democrat William Lacy J. Clay had amassed over $358,000 for his push against Charlie Dooley, who had secured over $244,000 in contributions by the end of March. Clay is seeking to replace his father in the first district seat. In the second district race, four (of seven) candidates for the GOP nomination had amassed six figure campaign war-chests, with former St. Louis county executive Gene McNary leading the way with nearly $415,000.

For all the money they stand to make between now and the fall, television has invested little in actual campaign coverage, and even less on informing the electorate about the candidates' position on issues. A search of stories on KSDK (Channel 5)'s web site (where broadcast stories are archived) uncovered only seven stories broadcast since mid-May on the four Senate and gubernatorial candidates, and most were not directly related to the campaign. Not one story dealt, for example, with tax policy, despite significant changes that Senator Ashcroft recently introduced to the tax legislation he proposed while a presidential candidate.

A search of KMOV (Channel 4)'s web site in early June uncovered only two campaign related stories for the prior two months--one a brief account of Talent formally declaring for the gubernatorial race. It was much easier to locate information on the Pet of the Week on Channel 4's site than anything on the elections.

Headlines and sound bites have been more plentiful regarding Ashcroft's past speeches and endorsements of Bob Jones University and his dalliance with white supremacy groups. Carnahan's fudging of his service records, his jostling of a TV cameraman and 35 year-old photos of the governor in black-face have surpassed any examinations of his record or position on the issues.

Not that these matters should be ignored. Voters have a right to see and hear embarrassing information to assess the character of the candidates. However, local media shows little interest in anything else about the campaign. A candidate losing his temper or an embarrassing incident earlier in their careers provides cheap, dramatic sound bites, images and quotes, all of which are eagerly supplied via fax and e-mail on a daily basis by the media operations of the candidates, parties and interest groups. Substantive coverage of the issues requires investigative reporting and, perhaps, a more sober reportorial style.

Ordinarily there would be little danger of the race for governor being dwarfed by other contests. Post political reporter Jo Mannies noted on Oct.15 that Talent's war chest already surpassed $2.3 million, while Holden reported having raised $2.2 million at the time. Hence, it seemed possible the governoris race might actually rival the senatorial race in total spending. However, the presidential and senatorial campaigns promise to be supplemented by enormous amounts of legal slush funds that threatened to drown out gubernatorial advertising.

If candidates in Missouri's gubernatorial, other state-wide and congressional races are faced with a difficult ask in getting the electorate's attention through the media, the difficulties are compounded for candidates for state legislative and for county and municipal positions. The result is an even stronger thirst for fund raising at the local level.

A full 18 months before the 2001 race for mayor of St. Louis City, Mannies reported that challenger had raised over $316,000 and incumbent Clarence Harmon $315,492. One year in advance of his re-election bid, Jeff Wegener, Democrat from Oakville and President of the St. Louis County Council had raised nearly $120,000. State Senate candidates from the area typically reported six figure war chests.

The money contributed to candidates themselves is but a small percentage of the total to be spent in the campaign. Other expenditures will come from "soft money" funds, money contributed to political party organizations and political action committees that are nominally independent of the candidates and not subject to limits. The most recent Federal Election Commission (FEC) reports show the national congressional committees of the two parties have raised $163 million, ten times the comparable amount for the 1996 election cycle. The main use of this money is television advertising.

With the senatorial candidates so diametrically opposed on hot-button issues such as gun control and abortion, the Missouri race is likely to be a magnate these funds and for so-called Iindependent expenditures," which are completely unregulated. This kind of spending dramatically increased after 1993 when the "Harry and Louise" ads run by the insurance industry played a major role in killing the Clinton administration's health-care proposals.

Such spots--often sponsored by groups and individuals personally close to the candidates but officially unaffiliated with their campaigns--are usually welcomed by the candidates they aim to help, but not always. Most are attack ads--and they can be an embarrassment. Recent spots targeting Senator Spencer Abraham (R-MI), a vulnerable incumbent, by a Washington based anti-immigrant group angered the Catholic Church. A similar campaign of radio ads in St. Louis by the "Coalition to Protect American Jobs" targeted Gephardt with a similar appeal to nativist sentiments.

Ashcroft, an incumbent with extremely low ratings from major labor and environmental organizations, is likely to be targeted by unions and environmental groups. Carnahan is likely to attract fire from the National Rifle Association and anti-abortion groups. The result is likely to be a particularly nasty campaign with charges and counter-charges by each side of campaign law violations.

Other contests with national implications make St. Louis media a magnate for soft money. Open seats are opportunities to change the complexion of Congress, and the region has two of them--the first district, being vacated by Rep. William Clay, and the second district, being vacated by Rep. Jim Talent. Gephardt's third district seat is safe, but his margin of victory was significantly narrowed two years ago from previous years. Right wing organizations will seek to buy local TV and radio spots to vent their fury against the Democrat's titular leader in the House.

The payoff for conservatives and Republicans may be indirect. They have little hope of defeating Gephardt, but they may force him to spend money locally that he would rather invest in swing races to determine which party controls the House of Representative. In the 1998 election, Gephardt simply recycled many of his ads from 1996. In 2000, he may not have the luxury of running a pro-forma media campaign.

Media buys and profits

All over the world, elections pose difficult regulatory issues. On the one hand, to resolve disputes peacefully and to enhance the legitimacy of the state, major parties and candidates need elections to be organized by a body respected for independence and integrity. On the other hand, politicians have an interest in maintaining rules that make entry by newcomers difficult. The wealthy, propertied classes require a system that keeps politicians response to them, but not so blatantly that ordinary people lose faith in the myth of democracy.

The U.S. federal system the organization of elections is extremely decentralized, with great responsibility for administration vested in county and state governments. Not until the grave threat to public confidence posed by the Watergate scandals was a national election commission put in place. By this time the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the agency charged with regulating candidates' access to broadcast media, had existed for four decades.

In most countries, special rules exist and electoral commissions are charged with ensuring free broadcast time to qualified candidates. In the United States, neither the FCC nor the FEC has such power. Despite provisions in the 1931 Communications Act empowering it to impose requirements on licensees, the FCC has been reluctant to insist that stations make air time available or even to vigorously enforce its own rules mandating access for paid spots. Those who would open the media to more democratic competition find the First Amendment a major obstacle to change.

The FCC is captive of the media industry, the FCC of the political parties. The FEC board is composed of three Democratic and three Republican representatives. With no independent representatives, it has proven powerless to act on even the most egregious violations of the letter and spirit of the law. The Commission ensured that the 2000 electoral cycle will be extremely lucrative for the media when it voted unanimously, against the recommendation of its staff, not to demand the 1996 Dole or Clinton campaigns refund $24.7 million for "issue advertising" that was little more than a fig-leaf for ads on behalf of the candidates themselves.

Donald Simon, executive vice president of Common Cause, told the Washington Post, "The FEC has basically given their stamp of approval for a major means of circumventing the law." Having the parties spend money on such ads allows candidates to agree to accept public funding with a little more than wink toward the quid pro quo, limitations on their own spending. In the current presidential campaign, Governor Bush has dispensed with all limitations by simply refusing public money.

Prior to the FEC decision, Attorney General Janet Reno had decided against seeking an independent counsel to investigate the FEC staff report's allegations against the Clinton campaign. She cited Clinton's reliance on the advice of campaign lawyers in an area of ambivalence. Together, her decision and the FEC report "means that the rules for issue- advertisements as interpreted .by the parties in 1996 are the rules for 2000," Jan Baran, an attorney specializing in election law, told the Washington Post.

The politicians have less influence over FCC, but that may be to the detriment of democracy. The FCC in 1997 found mostly in favor of the media in two cases brought by California politicians alleging that KCBS-TV in Los Angeles had violated various provision of the Federal Communications Act of 1931. The provisions in doubt have to do with the obligation of licensed broadcast stations since 1972 to charge political candidates no more that the "lowest unit charge" (LUC) available to regular commercial advertisers for the same class and amount of commercial time. These rules apply 45 days before a primary and 60 days before a general election.

Many broadcasters view these requirements as intrusions on their businesses and have sought ways to force candidates to pay higher rates. A 1990 court ruling in favor of Georgia politicians seeking refunds for overcharges prompted the stations to seek clarifications from the FCC. The Commission strengthened rate disclosure requirements but allowed the stations charge higher rates for spots that cannot be pre-empted.

When the Commission issued, between 1991 and 1994, a series of clarifications of regulations around LUC, it received commentary from variety sources, including a number of companies specializing in political media buying. One company, LUC Media, Inc., proudly touts itself to potential clients as having been cited 30 times by the FCC. However, when it comes to clashing interests between media owners and politicians, the former usually prevail.

To avoid revealing their rates to candidates, stations often develop specialized and complex rate cards that permit them to obfuscate the costs charged to their non-political clients. In the 1997 California case, the complainants charged KCBS with failing to provide rate cards for comparable periods in the pre-election season and for selling in advance "non-preemptible" airtime at premium rates to non-political advertisers.

The complainants also challenged the practice of charging candidates rates that exceed "SCOOP"-based rates. SCCOP refers to the "Spot Cost Outlook and Projections" provided by the Media Market Guide, a compilation of average rates charged by televisions stations. KCBS replied that the averages were below the actual rates for those particular slots coveted by the politicians. The FCC ruled the politicians had failed to provide data contradicting the station, thereby implying permission for stations to take into account higher demand in setting prices for political advertising.

The FCC did find a "prima-facie" case for a small part of the politicians' complaints that stations had overcharged them for the LUC period before the primary, season. However, rather than investigate, the Commission instead placed a heavy burden on the complainants to return with additional proof they had been victimized.

In a letter to the FCC in 1995, LUC Media contended station practices allow stations to define "a 'political' class of time, with higher rates than other classes, and then (offer) candidates only 'political' time." According to the company, "The broadcast industry, and its lawyers, have been very clever in developing pricing policies that result in candidates paying higher rates. As was the case leading up to the Commission's 1990 audit, broadcasters are becoming more clever, and rates are becoming higher, with each cycle."

In 1991, under great pressure from stations and networks, the FCC declared all complaints about LUC charges be brought to it rather than filed in court. The complex appeals process has largely favored broadcasters, but LUC Media and other buyers continue to wage an unresolved legal battle to move disputes out of the Commission and into the courts.

A Gold Mine for Stations

Toby Berkovitz, at Harvard's Kennedy School, says media buyers should seek to expose the average television viewer to an ad five times. Many campaigns will seek to purchase over 1,000 gross rating points per week, says Berkovitz.

According to Berkovitz's data, a spot television ad on a local newscast with an 11 point rating cost ranged from $85 to $240 in medium-sized markets. The particularly desirable viewer for political campaigns is the 35-plus category, which tends to tumout in much higher percentages than do younger voters.

A key objective of political media buyers is to attain the flexibility to deploy advertising time relatively late in the election cycle. Messages can be adapted at anytime, but advance purchase of slots limits the ability of campaign strategists to target swing voters late in the campaign. When polls show the candidates only a point or two apart in the closing days, the ability to direct a media blitz toward a key constituency may spell the difference between defeat and victory.

With three major campaigns underway at the same time, candidates unfamiliar to the local public will need to make early purchases in the St. Louis market, where nearly 40 percent of Missouri households are concentrated. Since these ads run outside the LUC period, politicians will have to pay premium rates to avoid the fall clutter. Nor does this serve the public well. By forcing early buys, the media contributes to lengthening the campaign season, encouraging both early fund raising and strategic, position advertising focused only vaguely, if at all, on issues.

In May, Holden ran two spot ads attempting to introduce himself to St. Louis voters as a politicians deeply committed to public education. On June 5, Jerry Berger reported that the state GOP is somewhat concerned that Talent has not matched Holden. Berger reported that Talent was changing media companies.

St. Louis area voters are likely to see a significant increase in media advertising around June 22. That date is 45 days prior to the Aug. 8 primary, which will resolve the first and second district congressional nominations. In this period, candidates are entitled to by their spot ads at LUC rates.

Local insiders speculate that in anticipation of swamped inventory stations in the St. Louis areas have seized on the opportunity to sell non-preemptible advertising at premium rates. Stations benefit doubly: They avoid having to sell additional LUC advertising and they reap premium revenues for slots. Commercial advertisers are being encouraged to lock-in their ads before the deluge of political spot ads.

Frank Absher, who covers radio for SJR, says the stations benefit by expanding their inventory of available slots. In past years, says Absher, KMOX-AM regularly expanded its inventory from 18 to 20 minutes per hour. There still is likely to be a shortage of inventory in the fall season. The overflow will benefit local cable systems, say several insiders.

Cable television advertising and radio have in common their relative low cost but lower saturation and impact. Four years ago, the average cost for a national cable spot is $3,000 to $5,000, while premium cable typically cost $10,000 per slot. By contrast, a slot on Monday Night Football, a program with excellent demographics for political advertisers, cost $200,000 four years ago.

Stations have vigorously resisted attempts to influence mandate greater access. They complain that current rules mandating they sell advertising time at the lowest unit costs them money. Rick Edlund, a former anchor on Channel 5, now media spokesperson for the Talent for Governor Campaign, doesn't think so. Campaign advertising "is a gold mine, a license to print money," he says. Stations make money "hand of over fist."

Brewing controversies for local media

In January, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a Missouri law limiting contributions to $1,075 is Constitutionally valid. Writing for the majority, Judge David Souter asserted, "There is little reason to doubt that sometimes large contributions will work actual corruption on our political system and no reason to question the existence of a corresponding suspicion among voters."

The Court decision will not immediately affect Missouri as Attorney General Jay Nixon indicated he would not apply the law retroactively. Fearing the worst, major candidates had already built up their war chests.

In contrast to Buckley v. Valeo, where the Court equated money with speech, Justice John Paul Stevens argued, "Money is property; it is not speech." Stevens said freedom to speak out and organize a campaign is not the same as

money. However, any major campaign is in fact pasted together by the glue of money. For example, "Media 1," a web site dedicated to linking candidates to companies operating in the campaign industries, listed 31 distinct specialty services, ranging from direct mail, media buying, production, law signs, etc.

Corporations are also involved in the election through their sponsorship of the national debates. AnsheuserBusch would want everyone to believe it is simply behaving as a good corporate citizen. Motivations aside, A-B may find itself the target of Seattle-like demonstrations if Ralph Nader, the consumer advocate and Green Party presidential candidate, is excluded from debates at Washington University in September.

When it established rules for access to the debates in 1992, the bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) required candidates meet Constitutional eligibility requirements and be on the ballot on enough states to have a mathematical chance to win. This year, the CPD, under control of the two major parties, says candidates must also have a standing of at lest 15 percent in major polls. The rule may eliminate both Nader and Pat Buchanan, the expected Reform Party nominee. Nader, in fact, was running ahead of Buchanan in the most recent Zogby international poll, with nearly 5 percent of the national vote and 13 percent of the vote in the West.

Fifteen percent is not a low enough threshold to ensure that all candidates with a chance to win are included. In the 1998 Minnesota governor's race, Reform Party Candidate Jesse Ventura stood at only 10 percent of the vote when he was admitted to the Minnesota gubernatorial debates at the insistence of the Democratic nominee, who thought Ventura would hurt his Republican opponent. Instead, Ventura began a meteoric rise in the polls and went on to win the contest.

The media-election complex

Broadcast stations are corporate entities usually beholden in this era to massive and profitable communications companies. These, in turn, are global in scope. Not surprisingly, given the stakes involved in gaining approval of cross-ownership and mergers, communications industries are among the largest contributors to political campaigns this year.

St. Louis area residents have already been treated to dueling commercials regarding proposals to force cable companies to allow ISPs access to their systems. Nationally, Microsoft has emerged as a major contributor to campaigns. Media companies are major players in presidential fund raising. FEC records show that the largest sources of contributions to the Ashcroft campaign are individuals and PACs associated with the communications industry, which together contributed over $249,000 to the incumbent's campaign. Individuals and companies in this sector also had contributed $57,000 to Carnahan and $65,000 to Gephardt, according to CRP data.

The present system abuses the pubic's right to be informed and the media's obligation to provide information on which the citizen can act. Should stations be allowed to make fabulous profits off the political process and be under now obligation to provide information about candidates and issues?

Generally, Republicans oppose, Democrats generally favor public financing of campaigns, but the two parties are more in agreement about opening the media to greater access. Edlund, for example, asked if stations should be required to make five minutes per week available to qualified candidates gratis, says, "I'm totally in favor of that."

Entry into politics once required gaining the support of party organizations whose paid and voluntary labor mobilized voters door-to-door. In contrast, modern campaigning requires specialists in campaign law, fundraising and media. The old system was far from clean, but it at least allowed citizens of modest means to enter politics without having to raise small fortunes for campaigns. The money-media complex ensures that access to the electoral process is beyond the reach of most ordinary citizens.

Dan Hellinger is professor of political science at Webster University.