Michigan’s Spectacular Failure of Campaign Finance Disclosure, 2000-2010

8/6/2019 Michigans Spectacular Failure of Campaign Finance Disclosure, 2000-2010

1/19

$70 Million Hidden in Plain Vie Michigans Spec acular Failure o Campaign Finance Disclosure, 2000-2010


2/19

Te Michigan Campaign Finance Ne work is a nonpro , nonpar isan organiza ion ha conduc s reseapublic educa ion on money in Michigan poli ics.

Board o Direc ors John Chamberlin

Eva Garza Dewaelsche Jan C. Dolan

Pa ricia Dona h John M. Koval

Lynn Jondahl John P. Mayer Alma Wheeler Smi hSusan Grimes Wid h

ich obinson, execu ive direc or

June 2011 by Michigan Campaign Finance Ne work Da a and in orma ion may be used or public educa ion wi h atribu ion.

Tis repor was researched and writen by ich obinson.

Te work o he Michigan Campaign Finance Ne work is sus ained by volun ary con ribu ions Michigan ci izens and he generous suppor o he Joyce Founda ion o Chicago. Publica ion o hi

by a con ribu ion rom he Mariel Founda ion o raverse Ci y.

Michigan Campaign Finance Ne work 200 Museum Drive, Lansing, MI 48933

Phone: (517) 482-7198 | Email: mc n@mc n.org | Web: www.mc n.org


3/19

able o Con en s

Research Me hodology: Es ima ing he Known Unknowns............................................................................................ 2

Te Absence o Accoun abili y ....................................................................................................................................... 3

In eres s in Confic ........................................................................................................................................................ 3

Michigan Supreme Cour Campaigns, 2000-2010: Te Invisible Hand in Judicial Campaigns..................................... 4

able 1. Michigan Supreme cour Campaign Finance Summary, 1984-2010 ....................................4 - 5

Figure 1. Michigan Supreme cour Campaign Finance Summary, 1984-2010 .........................................6

Michigan Guberna orial Campaigns, 2002-2010: $42 Million O he Books............................................................... 7

able 2. Michigan Guberna orial Campaign Finance Summary, 2002-2010 ...........................................7

Atorney General and Secre ary o S a e Campaigns: $5.9 Million ha Made a Di erence............................................8

Ignoring he Blun Ins rumen o Michigan Campaigns................................................................................................8

Te Cos o Will ul Ignorance .........................................................................................................................................9

Figure 2. Te Dashboard o Campaign Finance Accoun abili y, 2010 ......................................................9

able 3. S a ewide O ce Campaign Finance Summaries, 2010 .................................................................9

A Simple Fix o Res ore In egri y ..................................................................................................................................10

Endno es ........................................................................................................................................................................11

Appendix A. Summaries o Michigan Supreme Cour Campaign Finances, 1984-2010...................................................12

Appendix B. Summaries o Michigan Guberna orial Campaign Finances, 2002-2010.....................................................14

Appendix C. Summaries o Atorney General and Secre ary o S a e Campaign Finances, 2002-2010.............................15

$70 Million Hidden in Plain View Michigans Spec acular Failure o Campaign Finance Disclosure, 2000-2010


4/19

Research Me hodology Estimating the Known Unknowns

Te campaign elevision adver isemen sha are no disclosed in he S a es

campaign nance repor ing sys em

are commonly described as candida e-ocused issue adver isemen s. Teseads care ully avoid he language o express advocacy, as i is de ned in

he 1976 U.S. Supreme Cour case o Buckley v. Valeo1. In ederal campaigns,such adver isemen s are described aselec ioneering communica ions.

In general, records o candida e- ocusedissue adver isemen s are ound in hepublic les o he s a es broadcas ers andcable sys ems. Te Michigan CampaignFinance Ne work has collec ed records o candida e- ocused issue adver isemen s

rom broadcas ers public les since he2000 elec ion cycle. Prior o he passage o

he ederal Bipar isan Campaign e orm Ac o 2002 (BCR), popularly knownas he McCain-Feingold re orms, some broadcas ers wi hheld sales records or

heir issue adver isemen s. During haperiod, values o sales a non-repor ing

s a ions were derived rom es ima espublished by he Campaign Media Analysis Group (CMAG). CMAGses ima es were cons ruc ed rom anapplica ion o he s a ions adver isingra e cards o spo - requency recordscollec ed by sa elli e.

Subsequen o he passage o BCR, s a e broadcas ers and cable sys ems adop ed

he prac ice o keeping all records o issue adver isemen s in heir public les,along wi h hose o repor ed independenexpendi ures and he candida es own

adver isemen s. Ta prac ice wasunin errup ed un il he 2010 elec ioncycle.

In he all o 2010, he arge En erprisesadver ising agency, ac ing on behal o

he epublican Governors Associa ion,reques ed selec ed corpora e owners o Michigan broadcas licenses o wi hholdrecords o i s issue ads in suppor o now-Gov. ick Snyder. Several broadcas erscomplied, ci ing he ac ha FederalCommunica ions Commission (FCC)regula ions require public access orecords on maters o na ional impor ance(re erence o ederal candida es), bu hey are silen on maters o s a econcern ( ea uring s a e candida es).For hose s a ions ha complied wi h

arge s reques or secrecy, MCFNassigned values based on marke -sharees ima es developed over a decade o da acollec ion.

Te complexi y o de ermining wha wasspen on behal o whom varies wi h he

elec ion year. Presiden ial elec ion yearsare he simples because he only non-ederal candida es or s a ewide o ce

are candida es or he Michigan SupremeCour . As a resul , records rom 2004 and2008 are very precise.

Tere were much grea er complexi ies in2002 and 2010, when issue adver isers,mainly he poli ical par ies, were juggling mul iple s a ewide campaigns.Unraveling wha amoun s were spenon which candida es in hose years was accomplished by connec ing he

candida es o he agencies ha prodadver ising abou hem. Tis was oa minor issue in 2006, when here w

heavily avored incumben s running atorney general, secre ary o s a e jus ice o he Supreme Cour , andguberna orial campaign was absorbi

he vas majori y o issue-adverdollars.

I should be no ed ha he amoun sor elevision issue adver isemen s

conserva ive represen a ion o unrepopoli ical spending. Tere are also radiissue adver isemen s, bu here aremany radio broadcas ers or MCFN collec heir da a. Tere are unrepordirec mail adver isemen s, bu hePos al Service will no disclose i s records unless here is a case o mail

Te ac ivi y o he Michigan epublPar y in 2010 illus ra es he challo cap uring all unrepor ed spending widely circula ed nugge o conven wisdom in Lansing had i ha

Michigan epublican Par y raise$28 million in he 2010 cycle2. Ye , heMichigan epublican Par y reporonly $9 million o he Federal ElecCommission and $9.3 million more o Michigan Depar men o S a e. M

ound $2.8 million wor h o epublPar y Supreme Cour issue ads a$2.2 million more in he secre ary o and atorney general campaigns, none o which was repor ed, bu ha s ill $4.7 million more or which here isaccoun ing.

2


5/19

Te Absence o Accoun abili y

In eres s in Confic

On one level, an observer migh concludeha campaign nance disclosure is an

impor an value in Michigan poli ics. A er

all, candida es or s a e o ce mus iden i y every donor who makes a con ribu ion oheir campaign, even i he con ribu ion is

only one dollar. In con ras , con ribu ors oederal campaigns are no iden i ed unlessheir nancial suppor is a leas $200.

Ta impression o commi men ocampaign nance accoun abili y would be misguided. Beginning wi h he 2000Michigan Supreme Cour elec ioncampaign, in eres groups and individualshave spen almos $70 million orcampaign elevision adver isemen s ha were no disclosed in he S a es campaign

nance repor ing sys em. I you recallany poli ical adver isemen s rom he

pas decade ha sough o de ne a s a ecandida es charac er, quali ca ions orsui abili y or o ce, chances are good ha

he ads you remember are among hoseha were never repor ed.

How can ha be? Te MichiganDepar men o S a e doesn recognizepoli ical adver isemen s as campaignexpendi ures unless hey explici ly direca viewer how o vo e. I here are nomagic words o express advocacy, suchas vo e or, vo e agains , suppor , orde ea , he Depar men o S a e sees anadver isemen as merely educa ional, andi s sponsors have no obliga ion o repor whose money paid or he message.

Tis will ul s a e o ignorance is basedon an in erpre a ion o he Michigan

Campaign Finance Ac ha he language o he s a u e a

U.S. Supreme Cour campaign

jurisprudence. I is an a ron o ho Michigan who have mul iple inknowing who pays or poli ical camTis in erpre a ion is he reaso$70 million has been able o go miplain view.

Te rs s ep in correc ing his dissi ua ion is o horoughly underTis repor , which is he produc years o research, is an e or oan unders anding o he pa hocampaign nance secrecy ha uneeds o be cured.

Te in eres groups and eli e individuals who provide he majori y o money hadrives s a e elec ion campaigns are ra ionaleconomic ac ors. Teir nancial suppor isan inves men , and i is nave o believe

ha such inves men s are made or selfessreasons. e urns on poli ical inves menmay ake he orm o a workplaceregula ion, an environmen al deregula ion,a no-bid con rac , a ax credi , a budgepriori y, a ax no levied, a public worksprojec or a avorable cour decision. Te

re urns on poli ical inves men vary. Tepursui o hem is consis en .

A his poin in his ory, mos ci izens s illobjec o a direc poli icalquid pro quo.Nei her a campaign suppor er nor anelec ed o cial can a ord o be seen as apar y o he simple buying and selling o public policy. Ta is why we have limi son con ribu ions o candida es or publico ce. Con ribu ion limi s are mean o be a way o curbing corrup ion. Bu when

in eres groups wan o provide morecampaign suppor han he law allows, orsocie y accep s as benign, secrecy providesa pa h ha does no damage he publics anding o he campaign suppor er or heobjec o ha suppor .

Mos ci izens in eres s are no served by campaign nance secrecy. Ci izens have arecognized in eres in knowing he sourceso campaign nance suppor , so hey canproperly evalua e a candida e and cas an

in ormed vo e.Ci izens s ake in campaign ransparency also includes an in eres in limi ing heoppor uni y or corrup conduc . As Jus ice Louis Brandeis said, Sunshine is

he bes disin ec an .3

Finally, ci izens have a due process in eresha is served by campaign ransparency.

Te 2009 U.S. Supreme Cour caseo Caperton v. Massey Coal Company

es ablished ha ex raordinary cspending in suppor o a judicial ca by a par y o a case ha will be he judge in roduces a probabili y o requires he judge o recuse himsehearing his suppor ers case.4 Tis in ereis par icularly relevan or Michig

In summary, in eres groups anindividuals who have he n wherewi hal o s eer elec ion and, subsequen ly, he course o

policy, requen ly nd heir in ere by he absence o campaign accounTe public in eres is always servcampaign ransparency. In he si he o ceholders, dependen oin eres groups and vo ers. In heo pressure rom ci izens or ran

he o ceholders inac ion on camdisclosure serves he cause o hegroups a he expense o he publi

3


6/19

Michigan Supreme Cour Campaigns, 2000-2010:Te Invisible Hand in Judicial Campaigns

4

Te rajec ory o Michigan SupremeCour campaigns has evolved over he lasquar er-cen ury rom low key, low-dollar

con es s, o highly nanced, coarse- oned,highly secre ive con es s. Te MichiganSupreme Cour campaign in 2000represen ed a poin o radical change.

Te da a in able 1 show a pre-modernera, prior o he 2000 campaign, when hecandida e commitees did 90 percen o hecampaign spending, vir ually all spending was disclosed, and he average spen persea by all par ies was less han $770,000.

eview o he individual campaign yearssummaries ha are shown in Appendix A o his repor shows ha candida es wi hgrea er nancial backing won 10 o 18con es s in he pre-modern era, a successra e o 56 percen or he beter- undedcandida es.

In he modern era, beginning wi h he2000 campaign, he na ure o campaign

nances has been drama ically di eren .

For he period rom 2000 hrough 2010,he candida e commitees accoun edor jus 37 percen o overall campaign

spending. Jus 50.5 percen o all spending was repor ed in he S a es disclosuresys em. And he candida es wi h grea er

nancial backing won 11 o 12 races, asuccess ra e o 92 percen . In he modernera, average spending per sea opped$3.5 million.

Some elemen s o he modern era o Michigan Supreme Cour campaigns: Te 2000 campaign featured six

major par y candida es collec ively raising $6.8 million. epor edindependen expendi ures o aled$1.5 million. Unrepor ed issueadver ising sponsored by he MichiganDemocra ic Par y, he MichiganChamber o Commerce and heMichigan epublican Par y o aled$7.5 million.

In 2002, the candidates raised acombined o al o $964,000 and

repor ed independen expendi uo aled $27,000. Te only elevisi

issue ad buyer ha year, he Mich

Chamber o Commerce, ou spen eld o candida es wi h $1 milliounrepor ed ads.

In 2004, the candidates raised$1.5 million. epor ed independenexpendi ures o aled jus less $700,000, including $440,000 spen by Geo rey Fieger o atack incumbe Jus ice S ephen Markman in a fighadver isemen s ha were atribuun il mon hs a er he elec ion phony commitee called Ci izen

or Judicial e orm.5 Te MichiganChamber o Commerce, again, was only issue adver iser wi h $1.4 milin ads.

In 2006, the candidates raised$1.1 million, repor ed independenexpendi ures o aled $5,000 and Michigan Chamber o Commerce w

he only issue adver iser, spendi$844,000.

Pre-Modern EraTotal

1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 1984-1998

$1,181,321 $1,462,306 $295,076 $1,025,046 $1,091,924 $1,353,115 $2,354,106 $3,732,621 $12,495,515$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $50,667 $1,193,232 $76,960 $1,320,859$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

$1,181,321 $1,473,650 $295,076 $1,025,046 $1,091,924 $1,403,782 $3,547,338 $3,809,581 $13,827,7183 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 18$393,774 $736,825 $147,538 $512,523 $545,962 $701,891 $1,773,669 $1,269,860 $768,207

able 1. Michigan Supreme Cour

Source: Candida e Commitees and Independen Expendi ures: Michigan Depar men o S a e campaign fnance recordsElec ioneering TV Ads: MCFN TV s udy/Public fles o Michigan broadcas ers and cable sys ems


7/19

Te 2008 campaign was the only time inhe modern era when a candida e wi h

grea er nancial backing did no win:

Ten-Tird Circui Cour Judge DianeHa haway de ea ed incumben Chie Jus ice Cli ord aylor. aylor raisedmore in his campaign accoun hanHa haway, $1.9 million o $750,000.

epor ed independen expendi uresnarrowly avored Ha haway, $522,000

o $491,000. Issue adver ising by heMichigan epublican Par y and heMichigan Chamber o Commerce

o aled $2.4 million, compared o$1.4 million by he MichiganDemocra ic Par y. Unrepor edspending was grea er han ha which was repor ed, $3.8 million o$3.7 million.

Te 2010 campaign represented aculmina ion o a sor in he elevision-domina ed modern era o MichiganSupreme Cour campaigns: TirdCircui Judge Mary Be h Kelly was he

op vo e-geter in 2010, and she was

he only major par y nominee who didno buy elevision adver ising wi h herown campaign accoun . Te Michigan

epublican Par y spen $3.4 million orelevision adver isemen s suppor ingKelly and her ellow epublicannominee, Jus ice ober Young, andrepor ed only $650,000 o ha amoun . Judge Kellys campaign commiteerepor ed raising jus $411,000. TeMichigan epublican Par y andMichigan Associa ion o eal orsrepor ed independen expendi ures o $2.4 million suppor ing Kelly and Young, compared o $183,000repor ed by he Michigan Democra icPar y. Te Democra ic Par y spen$2.4 million or unrepor ed atack issue ads direc ed a Kelly and Young.Overall, unrepor ed spending opped

ha which was repor ed, $6.2 milliono $5.2 million.

Te secrecy o campaign nances in hemodern era o Supreme Cour campaigns

maters because i runs con raci izens in eres s in being able ocandida es in ligh o heir

suppor ers. Bu ha in eres exelec ions. Wha is unique abou SCour elec ions is he ci izens idue process o law. InCaperton v. MasCoal Company , he Uni ed S a es SCour ruled ha ex raordinary cspending in suppor o a judicial ca by a par y whose li iga ion will co

he judge he has suppor ed in roprobabili y o bias ha requires

o recuse himsel rom his casuppor ers li iga ion. Bu how c

o a case where due process hascompromised by ex raordinary speeven know o ask a jus ice o recspending is unrepor ed? TeCapertoncasillus ra es ha his is no mere problem. Campaign spenders are raeconomic ac ors, and no one has greason o provide ex raordinary supa jus ices campaign han a par y s akes case in he appeals pipeline.6

5

Modern EraTotal

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2000-2010

Candida e Commitees $6,824,311 $964,342 $1,544,278 $1,087,344 $2,690,495 $2,351,329 $15,462,099Independen Expendi ures $1,587,829 $27,408 $694,700 $5,223 $1,012,000 $2,485,885 $5,813,045Elec ioneering TV Ads $7,500,000 $1,020,000 $1,377,000 $844,500 $3,804,000 $6,295,000 $20,840,500

To al Spending $15,912,140 $2,011,750 $3,615,978 $1,937,067 $7,506,495 $11,132,214 $42,115,644Number o Sea s 3 2 2 2 1 2 1Spending per Sea $5,304,047 $1,005,875 $1,807,989 $968,534 $7,506,495 $5,566,107 $3,509,637

Percen Disclosed 52.9% 49.3% 61.9% 56.4% 49.3% 43.5% 50.5%

Campaign Finance Summary, 1984-2010


8/19

Te gross ailure o campaign disclosurein Michigan Supreme Cour campaignscrea es a oxic cloud ha shadows he

cour s presumed impar iali y. Morehan anywhere else in Michigan poli ics,

campaign ransparency is urgen ly neededin Supreme Cour campaigns.

Figure 1 provides a graphical illus ra iono how campaign nances have changed

in Michigan Supreme Cour campaigrom he pre-modern era, 1984-1998,he 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

Candida e Commitees Independen Expendi ures Elec ioneering V A

Figure 1.


9/197

Michigan Guberna orial Campaigns, 2002-2010:$42 Million Of the Books

Candida e- ocused issue adver ising rsappeared in a Michigan guberna orialcampaign in he 2002 Democra ic primary.

Te S . Clair Coun y Democra ic Par y bough $1.85 million in ads ha sough ode ne ormer Gov. James Blanchard and

hen-Atorney General Jenni er Granholmas unsui able al erna ives o CongressmanDavid Bonior. Te ads care ully avoidedany re erence o vo ing, and he S . ClairCoun y commitee led campaign nancerepor s ha said ha i had nei her raised,nor spen , any money o suppor oroppose a candida e.

Te da a in able 2 show ha issue adshave been an impor an ea ure o every guberna orial campaign since hey werein roduced. Overall, hey have accoun ed

or $42.1 million o $152.8 million spen ,or 27.6 percen .

By elec ion: In the 2002 general election, spending for

undisclosed issue ads exceeded repor edindependen expendi ures and candida e

spending: $9.8 million o $8.7 million. In the 2006 cycle, when neither majorpar y candida e had a primary challenger,issue adver ising o aled $18.3 million,including $12.8 million spen by heMichigan Democra ic Par y.

In the 2010 Democratic primary, theeven ual nominee, Lansing Mayor VirgBernero, won by 20 poin s wi hou

buying any elevision adver isingrom his campaign accoun . In ac ionreminiscen o 2002, he GeneseeCoun y Democra ic Par y spen $2million ou ing Bernero and atackinghis opponen , hen-House Speaker Andy Dillon. Dillon had $870,000 inissue ad suppor rom groups calledNor hern Michigan Educa ion Fundand Advance Michigan Now.

In the 2010 Republican primary,here was $1.2 million o undisclosedelevision issue adver ising suppor inghen-Atorney General Mike Cox

and opposing Mr. Coxs opponen s,par icularly Congressman Pe eHoeks ra; and $212,000 spen orunrepor ed issue ads o atack Mr. Cox.

In the 2010 general election, undisclosedelevision issue adver ising exceeded

repor ed independen expendi uresand candida e spending, $7.5 million

o $6.6 million. Te Michigan

Democra ic Par y spen $4.3 millionon behal o Virg Bernero and heepublican Governors Associa ion

spen $3.6 million on behal o now-Gov. ick Snyder.

As in all elec ions where here is o campaign nance disclosurelack o ransparency in recen M

guberna orial campaigns deprives o an abili y o evalua e candidao who is providing heir nancial In addi ion, here is he unknow

ha uniden i ed campaign suphave on an adminis ra ions policyIn one o her nal in erviews be oro ce, ormer Gov. Jenni er Gra

old Michigan Public adio, I isridiculous ha here is no disclo

hese hird par y dona ions o secha are fooding he airwaves. She

unrepor ed spending will have incsway on he poli ical sys em, like i7

As he bene ciary o $20 millioo undisclosed adver ising spo by he Michigan Democra ic PaGranholms au hori y on his should no be ques ioned. She benmore rom he invisible hand o uncampaign spending han anyone his ory o Michigan poli ics.

Summaries o 2002, 2006 and guberna orial campaigns are displa Appendix B o his repor .

able 2. Michigan Guberna orial Campaign Finance Summary, 2002 - 20102002 2002 2002 2006 2010 2010 2010

Republican

Primary

Democra ic

Primary General Primaries &

General

Republican

Primary

Democra ic

Primary

General

Elec ionTo al

Candida eCommitees $3,038,811 $11,520,242 $4,717,849 $57,653,709 $15,504,951 $2,593,108 $6,556,423 $101,585,093

IndependenExpendi ures - 1,222,040 4,005,848 3,089,164 390,841 - 298,568 9,006,461

Elec ioneering TV Ads - 1,850,000 9,800,000 18,330,000 1,403,000 2,900,000 7,900,000 42,183,000

To al $3,038,811 $14,592,282 $18,523,697 $79,072,873 $17,298,792 $5,493,108 $14,754,991 $152,774,554

Percen Disclosed 100.0% 87.3% 47.1% 76.8% 91.9% 47.2% 46.5% 72.4%

Sources: MI Dep o S a e, MCFN analysis o broadcas ers public fles


10/19

Atorney General and Secre ary o S a e Campaigns:$5.9 Million that Made a Diference

Undisclosed issue adver ising was animpor an ac or in he 2002 atorney general campaign. Te candida es,

Democra Gary Pe ers and epublicanMike Cox, had similar repor ed nancial backing: $1.1 million or Pe ers and$1 million or Cox. Te MichiganDemocra ic Par y spen $500,000 or issueads in suppor o Pe ers campaign bu ,arguably, i was an undisclosed $485,000ad bli z in he nal days o he campaign by he Michigan Chamber o Commerce

ha boos ed Cox o a 5,200-vo e win ouo hree million vo es cas .

Te 2006 atorney general race was noclose. Atorney General Mike Cox hadalmos hree imes as much campaigncash as his Democra ic challenger, Amos Williams: $1.9 million o $700,000. TeMichigan Chamber o Commerce spen

$500,000 or elevision issue ads o assisCox. Cox won ha elec ion by more han10 percen age poin s.

Te 2010 atorney general campaign wasone ha ea ured ex ravagan spendingon issue ads, even hough he even ual winner, epublican Bill Schuete, hada hree- o-one undraising advan ageover his Democra ic opponen , DavidLey on. Te candida es raised $2.9 million,repor ed independen expendi ures o aled$209,000, and he poli ical par ies and wogroups previously unknown in Michigancampaigns, Michigan Advocacy rus andLaw En orcemen Alliance o America,spen $2.6 million or undisclosed issue ads.

Te 2010 secre ary o s a e campaign was ano her ins ance where a winningcandida e, epublican u h Johnson,

won a elevision-driven campaign wi buying any elevision adver ising romown campaign accoun . Te Michiga

epublican Par y spen $1.35 millionunrepor ed issue ads atacking JohnsonDemocra ic opponen , Jocelyn Bens Johnsons campaign accoun and reporindependen expendi ures o aled $755,000. Benson raised $1.1 million her campaign accoun and he MichiDemocra ic Par y spen $465,000 undisclosed issue ads atacking JohnsonOverall, hal he money spen in campaign was o he books.

Campaign nance summaries o atorngeneral and secre ary o s a e camp

rom 2002, 2006 and 2010 are shown Appendix C.

As elec ioneering elevision adver isemen shave become he blun ins rumen o choice in Michigan poli ical campaigns,

he Depar men o S a e has relied onSupreme Cour jurisprudence o he bygone cen ury o s ead as ly ignore hem.In a posi ion expressed in an in erpre ives a emen issued o ober LaBran o

he Michigan Chamber o Commerce on April 20, 2004, he Depar men s a ed

ha i does no have he au hori y oregula e issue ads. I said, i mus apply

he express advocacy s andard o avoidcons i u ional problems,8 associa ed wi h

he de ni ion o an expendi ure in heMichigan Campaign Finance Ac (MCFA).

Te MCFA de nes an expendi ure as a[A] paymen , dona ion, loan, or promiseo paymen o money or any hing o ascer ainable mone ary value or goods,ma erial, services, or acili ies in assis anceo , or in opposi ion o, he nomina ion

or elec ion o a candida e, or hequali ca ion, passage or de ea o a balloques ion. Te MCFA makes an exclusionin he de ni ion o an expendi ure or communica ion on a subjec or issue i

he communica ion does no suppor oroppose a ballo ques ion or candida e by name or clear in erence.9

o give an example o wha his meansin prac ice, consider wo examples o adver isemen s rom he 2008 MichiganSupreme Cour campaign. Te Michigan

epublican Par y ran an ad ha began by saying, Newspapers call Diane Ha haway unquali ed or he Supreme Cour .10 TeMichigan Democra ic Par y ran ads hasaid, aylor was vo ed he wors judgeon he s a e Supreme Cour .11 In he view o he Depar men o S a e, nei heradver isemen carried clear in erence o suppor or opposi ion o a candida e. Tere was no repor ing o ei her expendi ure, nor

repor ing by ei her poli ical par y o money was used o pay or hose ads.

Te Depar men o S a es in erpreha clings o he presence o m

words rom Buckleyo de ne a campaignexpendi ure ignores he pivo al 2007 Supreme Cour case o Federal ElectionCommission (FEC) v. Wisconsin Rigto Life (WRTL).12 Ta case, which wasdeveloped o challenge he McCaFeingold ban agains corpora e spendon adver isemen s naming a edcandida e in he weeks immediapreceding an elec ion, also had he eo recognizing ha here is a uncequivalen o express advocacy. Te USupreme Cour ruled ha here canadver ising ha names a poli ical cand

ha is au hen ic issue advocacy and back-door campaign ad. Te cour alacknowledged ha an au hen ic campad doesn have o have magic words.

8

Ignoring he Blun Ins rumen o Michigan Campaig


11/19

In reaching i s decision inFEC v WRTL ,he U.S. Supreme Cour considered wha

cons i u es genuine issue advocacy. Tey

asked: Is here a genuine policy mater as ake? Is he adver isemen an au hen ice or o mobilize grassroo s lobbyingo a candida e who can a ec he policy mater? Is he adver isemen an atemp

o charac erize he candida es sui abili y o hold o ce? In he case a hand, he

cour said ha he answer o he rs wo

ques ions was, yes, and he answer o hehird ques ion was, no. Ta made clearha he adver isemen was au hen ic issue

advocacy.13e urning o he previously ci ed examplesrom he 2008 Michigan Supreme Cour

campaign, hose adver isemen s ailhe es o au hen ic issue advocacy on

all coun s. In Michigan, judges are nolobbyable o cials, and he ads moscer ainly se ou o de ne he candida es

sui abili y or o ce. Te Depar mS a es slavish reliance on Buckleysmagi words o express advocacy as a s

o de ermine wha is, or, is no , a expendi ure, crea es an enoailure in he sys em o campaig

accoun abili y. U.S. Supreme campaign nance jurisprudence moved orward in he direc ion oTe Michigan Depar men o S ain he las cen ury.

Te cos o Michigan vo ers o ignoringcandida e- ocused adver ising ha doesninclude magic words is represen ed inFigure 2, he Dashboard o CampaignFinance Accoun abili y, 2010. Overall, jus 61 percen o campaign spending ors a ewide o ces was disclosed in 2010,

and ha average is heavily weigh ed by he epublican guberna orial primary ha

included disclosure o $7 million rom juswo en i ies: $6 million in sel - undingrom ick Snyder and $1 million in

public campaign unds. I he epublicanguberna orial primary is se aside, less han

hal he spending in s a ewide cin 2010 was disclosed. Te DashboaCampaign Finance Accoun abili yshows a civic cul ure ha has sdisgrace ul level o ignorance.

9

Te Cos o Will ul Ignorance

able 3. S a ewide Ofces Campaign Finance Summaries, 2010

Guberna orial Guberna orial Guberna orial Atorney General

Secre ary o S a e

SupremeCour

epublicanPrimary

Democra icPrimary

GeneralElec ion o al

Candida eCommitees $2,935,092 $1,799,767 $2,351,329 $15,504,951 $2,593,108 $6,556,423 $

IndependenExpendi ures $209,381 $15,945 $2,485,885 $390,841 $ - $298,568 $3

Elec ioneeringV Ads $2,550,000 $1,815,000 $6,295,000 $1,403,000 $2,900,000 $7,900,000 $

o al $5,694,473 $3,630,712 $11,132,214 $17,298,792 $5,493,108 $14,754,991

Sources: MI Dep o S a e, MCFN analysis o broadcas ers public les

Figure 2. Dashboard o Campaign Finance Accoun abili y, 2010

55.2% 50.0% 43.5% 91.9% 47.2% 46.5% 6

Atorney General

Secre ary o S a e

SupremeCour

epublicanPrimary

Democra icPrimary

GeneralElec ion

o alGuberna orial Guberna orial Guberna orial

(Percen age Disclosed)


12/19

A Simple Fix o Res ore In egri y

epairing Michigans conspicuously ailing sys em o campaign accoun abili y

is concep ually simple. Te de ni ion o

an expendi ure in he Michigan CampaignFinance Ac mus be amended oinclude elec ioneering communica ions.Elec ioneering communica ions should be de ned o include any broadcas , cable,In erne or elephonic communica ion

ha ea ures he name or image o a candida e or s a e or local o ce wi hin 60 days o an elec ion involving

ha candida e. Any commitee orcorpora ion ha sponsors elec ioneeringcommunica ions mus disclose hedonors whose unds he sponsor isaggrega ing o pay or i s communica ions. Any commitee or corpora ion ha is acon ribu or o a sponsor o elec ioneeringcommunica ions, or a con ribu or oa con ribu or, mus , in urn, repor i sdonors. No allowance can be given or he ussian doll s ra egy o hiding donorsinside shells.

Would his solu ion have cons i u ional

problems? Absolu ely no . Te 2010case o Citizens United v. Federal ElectionCommission14 es ablished unequivocally

ha he Congress, a s a e legisla ure or,in a ballo ini ia ive s a e, he people o as a e may require disclosure o donors,

whe her he communica ion is expressadvocacy, he unc ional equivalen o express advocacy or issue advocacy. TeSupreme Cour recognized ha ci izenshave an in eres in knowing whose money is behind all such communica ions.

Is poli ical accoun abili y a hrea oreedom o associa ion? Tis is a despera e

s raw ha he opponen s o poli icalaccoun abili y are grasping. Tey ci e

he 1958 case o NAACP v. Alabama15 o atemp o jus i y anonymi y or he

mas ers o he campaign nance universe.Tis argumen is clear indica ion hacon emporary poli ics has no shame.

o compare a case where anonymi y was needed o pro ec lives when civilrigh s workers were being lynched andmurdered wi h campaign spendersdesire o wipe heir ngerprin s o heirexpendi ures is pa he ic, cowardly anden irely inappropria e.

Te challenge o achieving ransparency and accoun abili y or campaign spending

is no a mater o ambiguous vo ers vaO ceholders know ha ci izens wcampaign ransparency. A poll conduc

or Inside Michigan Poli ics by Markeesource Group in March 2011 ound 81 percen o Michigan vo ers avodisclosure o all elec ioneering spendand 12 percen oppose disclosure.16 A 2009 poll by Denno-Noor esearchcommissioned by he Michigan CampaiFinance Ne work asked vo ers abouspeci c case o elec ioneering discloin Supreme Cour campaigns and ou

ha 96 percen avor disclosure and3 percen oppose i .17 ransparency andaccoun abili y are conserva ive value

hey are progressive values. Tere is ncon roversy.

Te challenge is poli ical courageO ceholders are caugh be ween vo values and big-money donors desire anonymi y. Will elec ed o cials o

erm limi s era s and wi h ci izens ahe in eres groups who pay heir o he big dance in Lansing? So ar

answer o ha $70 million ques ioNo. Now, he ques ion is, wha wilci izens do abou i ?

10

View Examples o Unrepor ed Campaign Adver isemen sTe Michigan Campaign Finance Ne work has compiled a small collec ion o candida e- ocused issue ads, so you examples o campaign adver is emen s ha were never repor ed o he Michigan Depar men o S a e.

Go o www.mc n.org


13/19

Endno es

11

1 Buckley v. Valeo , 424 U.S. 1, 44 n.52 (1976)2 Gongwer News Service, Volume 50, epor 15, Ar icle 6, 1/21/20113 Brandeis, Louis D., O her Peoples MoneyAnd How he Bankers Use I (1914), Chap er V, par. 1. Te amous saying is q

mos o en used. In ac , he original ex read Sunligh is said o be he bes o disin ec an s.4 Caperton v. Massey Coal Company , 129 S.C . a 22645 Te commitee Ci izens or Judicial e orm was regis ered a a nonexis en address wi h an un raceable reasurer.6 Massey CEO Don Blankenship provided $3 million o an independen commitee called And or he Sake o he Children

adver ising en i y in a campaign ha resul ed in he elec ion o Bren Benjamin o he Wes Virginia Supreme Courre used o recuse himsel rom he Caper on sui and cas he deciding vo e in reversing a $50 million damage judgmen

7 Michigan Public adio ranscrip provided by ick Plu a.8 htp://www.michigan.gov/documen s/2004_126239_7.pd 9 Michigan Compiled Laws 169.20610 See htp://www.mc n.org/MSC84_10.php, Dangerous ulings11 See htp://www.mc n.org/MSC84_10.php, Te Sleeping Judge12 Federal Elec ion Commission v. Wisconsin igh o Li e, 551 U.S. 449 (2007)13 FEC v. WRTL , 551 U.S. a 47014 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission , 130 S. C . 876 (2010)15 NAACP v. Alabama , 357 U.S. 449 (1958)16 Inside Michigan Poli ics, Vol. XIII, No. 11. March 28,201117 Unpublished poll conduc ed March 9-12, 2009. 600 sample. Margin or error: plus/minus 4%.


14/1912

2010

Candidate Receipts Independent Spenders Amount Electioneering TelevisionDavis, Alton (I) $988,187 MI Democratic Party $106,034 MI Republican Party Kelly, Mary Beth 418,262 MI Republican Party 1,919,315 Law En orcement Alliance o America Morris, Denise Lang ord 101,626 MI Assn o Realtors 450,000 MI Democratic Party Roddis, Bob - RTL o MI 10,536 21 Century Leadership Fund Young Jr., Robert P. 843,254 Total $2,485,885 Total $6,295,0Total $2,351,329 Source: MI Dept o State Source: MCFN analysis o broadcasterspublic lesSource: MI Dept o State

2008

Candidate Receipts Independent Spenders Amount Electioneering TelevisionHathaway, Diane Marie $752,736 MI Democratic Party $522,203 MI Democratic Party $Roddis, Robert - MI Republican Party 264,797 MI Chamber o Commerce Taylor, Cli ord W. 1,937,759 Great Lakes Educ Proj 225,000 MI Republican Party Total $2,690,495 Total $1,012,000 Total $3,804Source: MI Dept o State Source: MI Dept o State Source: MCFN analysis o broadcasterspublic les

2006

Candidate Receipts Independent Spenders Amount Electioneering TelevisionBeckering, Jane $61,269 Republican County Cmtes $1,334 MI Chamber o Commerce Cavanagh, Michael F. 316,799 Democratic County Cmtes 1,218Source: MCFN analysis o broadcasterspublic lesCorrigan, Maura D. 679,286 RTL o MI 2,671Morgan, Kerry L. - Total $5,223Shulman, Marc 29,989 Source: MI Dept o StateTotal $1,087,343Source: MI Dept o State

2004

Candidate Receipts Independent Spenders Amount Electioneering TelevisionKelly, Marilyn $728,800 MI Democratic Party $36,862 MI Chamber o Commerce Markman, Stephen J 721,978 Geo rey Fieger (CJR) 440,000Source: MCFN analysis o broadcasterspublic lesSchwartz, Leonard 2,847 MI Republican Party 177,032Thomas, Deborah 68,374 Republican County Cmtes 1616Zahra, Brian 22,279 RTL o MI 39,190Total $1,544,278 Total $694,700Source: MI Dept o State Source: MI Dept o State

2002

Candidate Receipts Independent Spenders Amount Electioneering TelevisionBrennan, J. Martin $11,549 MI Democratic Party $15,594 MI Chamber o Commerce Donahue, Michael - MI Republican Party 6,480Source: MCFN analysis o broadcasterspublic les

Drake, Maggie 44,025 Republican County Cmtes 424Hadden, Donnelly 5,915 RTL o MI 4,910Weaver, Elizabeth A. 280,440 Total $27,408 Young, Robert P., Jr. 622,413 Source: MI Dept o StateYuille, Bruce -Total $964,342Source: MI Dept o State

2000

Candidate Receipts Independent Spenders Amount Electioneering TelevisionRobinson, Marietta S. $1,195,683 MI Democratic Party $366 MI Chamber o Commerce Roddis, Robert - MI Republican Party 1,350,385 MI Democratic Party Taylor, Cli ord W. 1,332,975 Ann Arbor PAC 208,200 MI Republican Party Markman, Stephen J. 1,244,502 Dem. Justice Caucus 28,878 Total $7,50Raa aub, David - Total $1,587,829Source: MCFN television advertising studyThomas, Edward M. 1,008,420Source: MI Dept o StateFitzgerald, E. Thomas 750,539

Kau man, Jerry - Young, Robert P., Jr. 1,292,192Total $6,824,311Source: MI Dept o State

1998

Candidate Receipts Independent Spenders AmountAbel, Mathew $- MI Democratic Party $33,036Borman, Susan D. 663,183 MI Republican Party 43,924Cavanagh, Michael F. 255,073 Total $76,960Collins, Je rey G. 202,163Source: MI Dept o StateCorrigan, Maura D. 1,033,339Kau man, Jerry J. -Raa aub, David H. -Taylor, Cli ord W. 986,566Youngblood, Carole F. 592,297Total $3,732,621Source: MI Dept o State

Appendix A. Summaries o Michigan Supreme Cour Campaigns, 1984 - 2010

Election winners in bold type.


15/19

Appendix A. Summaries o Michigan Supreme Cour Campaigns, 1984 - 2010

13

1996

Candidate Receipts Independent Spenders Amount

Brickley, James H. $228,977 MI Democratic Party $387,785Cooper, Jessica 148,931 MI Republican Party 551,273Gage, Hilda R. 723,570 Justice or MI Citizens 103,788Kau man, Jerry J. - MI State Victory Cmte 150,386Kelly, Marilyn 553,274 Total $1,193,232Murphy, William B. 699,354Source: MI Dept o S tateRaa aub, David H. -Total $2,354,106Source: MI Dept o State

1994

Candidate Receipts Independent Spenders AmountGrifn, Richard A. $198,178 MI Democratic Party $50,668Killeen, George 63,940 Source: MI Dept o S tateMallett, Conrad L., Jr. 374,101Shelton, Donald E. 519,901Weaver, Elizabeth A. 196,995Total $1,353,115Source: MI Dept o State

1992 1990 1988

Candidate Receipts Candidate Receipts CandidateKelly, Marilyn $108,949 Boyle, Patricia J. $430,388 Brickley, James H. $120,49Riley, Dorothy Comstock 241,038 Cavanagh, Michael F. 263,926 Johnston, Richard Roddis, Robert W. - Durant, Clark 314,842 Kau man, Jerry J. Kau man, Jerry J. - Hahn, Charles -Levin, Charles L. 82,66Mallett, Conrad L., Jr. 451,776 Hughes, Judy M. 15,890 Stempien, Marvin Talbot Michael 290,162 Kau man, Jerry J. - Warbier, Donald Total $1,091,925 Total $1,025,046 Total Source: MI Dept o State Source: MI Dept o S tateSource: MI Dept o State Source: MI Dept o StateSource: MI Dept o State

1986 1984

Candidate Receipts Candidate Receipts

Archer, Dennis W. $450,817 Boyle, Patricia J. $347,634Carras, James J. - Brickley, James H. 145,830Clay, Henry - Grifn, Robert P. 209,542Collison, Je rey C. - Hathaway, James A. 121,407Ferency, Zolton 19,397 Kavanagh, Thomas Giles 109,542Ferrara, Andrea J. - Raa aub, David H. -Fitzgerald, E. Thomas 17,193Riley, Dorothy Comstock 247,366Grifn, Robert P. 320,007 Roddis, Robert W. -Howarth, E. Leonard - Total $1,181,321Kallman, James T. 74,323 Source: MI Dept o S tateKau man, Jerry J. 945Kelley, James J. 16,875Korn, Stephen P. -MacKenzie, Barbara B. 15,151Marutiak, Michael Joseph -McDonough, John J. -Mikesell, Willard L 575

O'Hara, John P., Jr. 1,050Paunovich, Melvin L. -Robb, Dean 488,600Simon, Caleb M. -Simon, Michael F. -Stelt, James R. -Weiss, Robert E.* 68,717Total $1,473,650Source: MI Dept o State

Election winners in bold ty


16/19

Appendix B. Summaries o Michigan Guberna orial Campaigns, 2002 - 2010

14

2010 General

Candidate Receipts Independent Spenders Amount Electionering Television Bernero, Virg $2,215,193 MI Republican Party $241,195 Republican Governors Assn

Snyder, Rick 4,341,230 MI Democratic Party 17,949 MI Democratic Party $4Total $6,556,423 Working America 39,424 Total $7,9Source: MI Dept o S tate Total $298,568 Source: MCFN analysis o broadcasterspublic les

Source: MI Dept o S tate

2010 Republican Primary

Bouchard, Mike $1,420,260 Independent Spenders Amount Electionering Television Cox, Mike 3,641,486 RTL MI PAC $75,241 Americans or Job Security George, Tom 472,802 MI Businesses United 315,600 Fdn. or Secure & Prosperous Am. Hoekstra, Pete 1,927,288 Total $390,841 MI Chamber o Commerce Snyder, Rick 8,043,115 Source: MI Dept o S tate MI Taxpayers Alert $165,000Total $15,504,951 Total $1,403,00Source: MI Dept o State Source: MCFN analysis o broadcasterspublic les

2010 Democratic Primary

Candidate Receipts Independent Spenders Amount Electionering Television

Bernero, Virg $1,166,656 Genesee County Democratic Party $2,02Dillon, Andy 1,426,452 Advance Michigan Now $4Total $ 2,593,108 Northern Michigan Education Fund $4Source: MI Dept o S tate Total $2,900,000

Source: MCFN analysis o broadcasterspublic les

2006 Primary & General

Candidate Receipts Independent Spenders Amount Electionering Television DeVos, Dick $42,550,955 MI Democratic Party $319,687 MI Democratic Party Granholm, Jenni er 15,718,935 Coalition or Progress 1,655,543 MI Republican Party Total $58,269,890 Emilys List 965,390 Republican Governors Assn Source: MI Dept o S tate America Votes 5,164 MI Chamber o Commerce $1,

MI Republican Party 2,980 Coalition or Traditional Values National RTL - MI 130,986 Total $18,330RTL MI 9,414 Source: MCFN analysis o broadcasterspublic lesTotal $3,089,164Source: MI Dept o S tate

2002 General Election

Candidate Receipts Independent Spenders Amount Electionering Television Granholm, Jenni er $2,494,734 MI Republican Party $3,494,542 MI Democratic Party $Posthumus, Dick 2,223,115 RTL MI 237,955 MI Republican Party Total $4,717,849 Sa ari Club Intl 14,897 MI Chamber o Commerce Source: MI Dept o S tate Natl Ri e Assn 3,998 Total $9,400,0

Citizens or Trad. Values 8,501Source: MCFN analysis o broadcasterspublic lesMI Democratic Party 203,799Planned Parenthood 6,895MI Education Assn 12,238Citizens or Public Educ. 23,023Total $4,005,848Source: MI Dept o S tate

2002 Republican Primary

Candidate Receipts Independent Spenders Amount Electionering Television Posthumus, Dick $2,722,154Schwarz, Joe 518,657Total $3,240,811Source: MI Dept o S tate

2002 Democratic Primary

Candidate Receipts Independent Spenders Amount Electionering Television Blanchard, Jim $2,180,527 Citizens or Responsible St. Clair County Democratic Party Bonior, David 2,258,129 Leadership $1,220,362Source: MCFN analysis o broadcasterspublic lesGranholm, Jenni er 7,081,586 10th Dist Dem Cmte 3,678Total $11,520,242 Total $1,224,040Source: MI Dept o State Source: MI Dept o State

Election winners in bold type.


17/1915

Appendix C. Summaries o Michigan Atorney General and Secre ary o S a e Campaigns, 2002 - 2010

2010 Attorney General

Candidate Receipts Independent Spenders Amount Electionering Television Leyton, David $714,080 MI Republican Party $200,580 MI Democratic Party Schuette, Bill 2,221,012 RTL MI 5,300 MI Republican Party Total $2,935,092 MI Democratic Party 1,381 MI Advocacy Trust Source: MI Dept o State Coalition or Progress 2,120 Law En orcement Alliance Am

Total $209,381 Total $2,55Source: MI Dept o State Source: MCFN analysis o broadcasterspublicles

2010 Secretary o State

Candidate Receipts Independent Spenders Amount Electionering Television Benson, Jocelyn $1,084,817 MI Republican Party $9,262 MI Democratic Party Johnson, Ruth 714,950 RTL MI 5,302 MI Republican Party Total $1,799,767 MI Democratic Party 1,381 Total Source: MI Dept o State Total $15,945 Source: MCFN analysis o broadcasterspublic les

Source: MI Dept o State


Candidate Receipts Independent Spenders Amount Electionering Television Cox, Mike $1,938,740 MI Republican Party $743 MI Chamber o CommerceWilliams, Amos 671,083 MI Democratic Party 28,206Source: MCFN analysis o broadcasterspublic les

Total $2,609,823 Total $28,949Source: MI Dept o State Source: MI Dept o State


Candidate Receipts Independent Spenders Amount Electionering Television Land, Terri Lynn $1,218,193 Republican Party Cmtes $1,697Sabaugh, Carmella 192,528 MI Democratic Party 41,737Total $1,410,721 Secretary o State Project 4,647Source: MI Dept o State Total $48,081

Source: MI Dept o State


Candidate Receipts Independent Spenders Amount Electionering Television Cox, Mike $915,042 MI Republican Party $3,289 MI Chamber o Commerce Peters, Gary 1,136,366 RTL - MI 2,296 MI Democratic Party Total $2,051,408 Great Lakes Educ. Project 63,419 Total Source: MI Dept o State Natl Ri e Ass. 2,371 Source: MCFN analysis o broadcasterspublic les

MI Democratic Party 7,797Total $79,172Source: MI Dept o State


Candidate Receipts Independent Spenders Amount Electionering Television Hollowell, Butch $696,040 West MI Leadership Caucus $359,880Land, Terri Lynn 2,092,829 MI Republican Party 2,513Total $2,788,869 RTL - MI 2,296Source: MI Dept o State MI Democratic Party 7,797

Total $372,486Source: MI Dept o State

Election winners in bold ty


18/19


19/19

equiring people o s and up in public or heir poos ers civic courage, wi hou which democracy is

Jus ice An onin Scalia, Doe v. Reed(2010)

Michigan Campaign Finance Ne work 200 Museum Drive, Lansing, MI 48933

Phone: (517) 482-7198 | Email: mc n@mc n.org | Web: www.mc n.org

Documents

Michigan’s Spectacular Failure of Campaign Finance Disclosure, 2000-2010