Obama's October Surprise (Redux)

"In one Ohio ad buy slated to run just before the election, for example, Obama is paying $125 for a spot that is costing a conservative super PAC $900."  From an article by Dan Egan in the Washington Post on September 26.

The first post on this blog discussed the financial advantages Obama would enjoy because of campaign finance law. 

Obama's October (and September) Surprise

Commercial airways in the 60 days preceding the Presidential Election may not be a complete no fly zone for Super Pacs, but at a minimum flights will be limited, expensive, and difficult to change.  Conventional wisdom is wrong.  Super Pacs will have less impact than expected.

Under campaign finance law television stations must give each presidential campaign reasonable access, freedom from censorship, and during the 60 days preceding the election, the lowest unit rate available.  Neither Super Pacs, nor the political parties,  enjoy these advantages.  In fact a television station violates the law if a Super Pac is offered a reduced advertising rate (See Federal Election Commission Advisory Opinion 2006-31).  It would be an illegal campaign contribution for a station, e. g. Fox News, to offer a Super Pac reduced rates.

The law should favor the President.  Mitt is expected to catch more Super Pac money, while the President will field more small contributions directly to his campaign.   In the crucial run up to the election, a dollar from the President's campaign will buy more advertising than a dollar from a Romney Super Pac.

Equally important is flexibility.  In the closing days of a campaign resource allocation may change rapidly, a state may come into, or go out of play.  Super Pacs have no preferential access to air time.  With the expected deluge of political adds in battle ground states, as well as increased commercial adds during the start of the fall season, advertising time will be limited.  To get on the air Super Pacs may have to commit, and lock in resources, earlier than the campaigns.  Money may be wasted in states that are no longer battlegrounds.  (To keep up on which states are battlegrounds, and other political news, checkout http://www.politicalwire.com)

Message flexibility is as important as geography.  Campaigns may need to cut an ad at the last minute to confront a new issue.  Since adds from a campaign are free from censorship, stations accept content without review.  Ads from Super Pacs must be reviewed, which can delay airing of the adds.

The President's surprise is that while less money may be spent by him in the final days of the election, he will have as much, or more, advertising time in battleground states as the challenger.

Obama Benefits from Inequality

Not all dollars are created equal.  Just as Obama's team used mastery of the intricacies  of delegate selection to help secure the 2008 nomination, their mastery of campaign finance rules is helping to win the 2012 election.

1.  Primary dollars are worth more than general election dollars.  A contributor can give a maximum of $2500 dollars for the primaries and the same amount for the general election.  Primary money may be rolled over into general election funds but general election funds may not be used before a candidate is nominated.  Romney could only stare wistfully at his large general election bank account during the summer, having tapped out much of his primary money securing the nomination.
2. Uncontested dollars are most valuable.  Obama was able to successfully define Romney, as a heartless plutocrat, during the summer with only minimal resistance.
3. Dollars from small contributors are worth more than those from major donors.  As anyone receiving 4 e-mail solicitations a day knows, small contributors can be tapped again.  Major donors are done with direct contributions to the campaign once they give $2500 to the primary and general campaigns.  Reliance on fewer, but larger, contributions accounted for Romney being general election rich, and primary poor, during the summer.
4. Campaign dollars are worth more than party dollars.  Much of Romney's massive fund raising has been in coordination with the RNC.  In addition to  $5000 to the campaign a donor may contribute $30,800 to  the national party committee.  But only 21 million may be spent by the committee in coordination with the campaign.  RNC coordinated advertising, in support of Romney, is limited to that amount.  Also lower advertising rates and preferential availability of ad time apply solely to the campaign.
5. Campaign dollars are worth more than super pac dollars. In addition to limited contributions to the campaign and the party committee, wealthy donors may give uncapped contributions to Super Pacs.  But, TV stations are not required to make time available for super pacs ads, nor may they be offered the preferential rates legally mandated for campaign ads        ( this is more fully covered in the post "Obama's October (and September) Surprise").    Also if the devil(as Republicans see him) is fiddling better than Romney at the crossroads, soulless Karl Rove may send his money down the road to congressional and senate races.
6. Campaign dollars are more effective than third party dollars.   LA Times reporters Melanie Mason and Matea Gold reported on the problems of mixed messaging. Super Pacs, and political parties, above set limits, may not coordinate with the campaign.  Although sometimes buried under a jagged jumble of news cycles, a consistent focused message is the goal of a campaign.  Obama has a more focused message because his campaign places 90% of its ads, in contrast to less than 50% by the Romney team.

Romney's most devious stratagem to date, was giving his campaign staff a $200,000 bonus after the inept Republican convention.  He sought to sow dissension among, the already less highly compensated, and better performing, Obama staff.  He failed to account for the morale and resume value of being on the winning side.  Perhaps, Romney does not understand the value of a dollar.