More reporting back by MAYDAY

[Below is copied and pasted from here on MAYDAY website.]

In 2014, MAYDAY moved voters and sent a signal to politicians – but more remains to be done.

MAYDAY.US’s goal is to elect a Congress committed to fundamental reform in how campaigns are funded.

Our aims in this election cycle were A) To send a signal to members of Congress that opposing reform could have real electoral consequences and supporting reform could have electoral benefits, B) To demonstrate that the issue of money in politics moves voters, and C) To learn lessons about campaigning on our issue this cycle to set ourselves.

Unlike the DSCC or NRSC, MAYDAY.US’s goal was never about picking up a few seats around the edges in a short-term game. For us, winning elections is the simplest proof of viability for a longer-term strategy for fundamental reform. But it is not the only route. And our core goals saw significant advancement this cycle – setting us up for success in 2016.

A) Did we show politicians electoral consequences for opposing or supporting reform? Absolutely.

MAYDAY.US helped elect two reform champions: Rep-elect Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) and Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC) – showing that we will support politicians from both parties who do the right thing.

In Michigan’s 6th Congressional District, powerful House Energy & Commerce Chair Fred Upton was sitting on a multi-million dollar war chest of special interest money, not expecting to spend it. The New York Times reported, “In a race that was on no one’s radar a month ago, Mayday is now the biggest outside spender” and the KZOO Gazette reported, “U.S. Rep. Fred Upton has cruised to easy victories for 28 years, but this time a national super PAC is spending $2.15 million against Upton.”

Upton’s reaction is well documented: Intimidating Mayday donors, airing ads attacking Mayday, and proclaiming himself a supporter of reform (clinging to a 2002 vote). But of most interest to Upton’s colleagues, he was forced to deplete his war chest and had to be helped by a Koch Brothers aligned group to defend himself.

The Hill reported, “Supporters and opponents of House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) are spending big in the final days before his election, turning a once-ignored race into a possible upset… MayDay PAC, aimed at ending ‘money’s corrupting influence in politics,’ released its latest ad slamming Upton on Wednesday.”

Word has spread and will continue spreading in the halls of Congress that Mayday can create real pain for those who oppose reform. And that can change the calculus for politicians considering whether to support reform.

B) Did we show that the issue of money in politics can move voters? Yes.

Throughout our work this cycle, we built into our campaigns data-driven experiments – testing the impact of our TV ads, mail, and phone program. The results of these experiments are still be compiled and will empower us to run even more impactful campaigns in 2016.

But data that we already have back is below.

---

RESULTS IN MICHIGAN’S 6th DISTRICT

• Our campaign significantly increased Paul Clements’ visibility and favorability and made MI-06 a ‘last minute battleground race.’ In late August, Clements was unknown – only 22% of voters could identify him.
• Early on, Clements was also totally undefined, with nearly equivalent 6% favorability and 7% unfavorability. Two months later in October, twice as many (43%) voters were familiar with Clements and his favorability jumped to 40% and a net positive approval rating.
• Clements has a significant lead on our issue – among the 25% of voters who do not favor Citizens United, he leads by 61 points over Upton.
• By the end of the campaign, 51% of polled likely voters agreed “sides with corporate special interests” describes Upton well.
• Our ad buys reduced Upton’s net approval by over 10 points – forcing him to double his ad buy the last week in a bid to recover.
• Overall, post-election polling shows that politicians putting their own interests ahead of the people they represent is an important voting issue for 78% of voters.
• Likewise, politicians putting the interests of big-money campaign donors ahead of the people they represent is also an important voting issue for the vote of 71% of voters.

RESULTS IN SOUTH DAKOTA SENATE RACE

• US’s message fared well against Mike Rounds – of the 81% of voters who recalled seeing ads about Rounds, three times as many said the ad made them less favorable to him as reported feeling more favorable.
• Our investment helped give Weiland a boost in the most critical advertising window of any campaign – the weeks right before the election.
• Our campaign also corresponded with a tripling of the number of voters who felt that Rounds, more than Weiland, would put campaign contributors ahead of his constituents.
• The week before the election, nearly 49% of voters said Mike Rounds was too close to corporate special interests – compared to just 13% for Weiland.
• Post-election polling shows that politicians putting their own interests ahead of the people they represent is an important voting issue for 77% of voters.
• Likewise, politicians putting the interests of big-money campaign donors ahead of the people they represent is also an important voting issue for the vote of 68% of voters.

RESULTS IN NEW HAMPSHIRE SENATE REPUBLICAN PRIMARY

• During NH-SEN primary, MAYDAY.US ran TV and mail advertisements that called attention to Scott Brown’s history of working at a lobbying firm and being ‘Wall Street’s favorite Congressman’. Nearly six weeks after these ads, 60% of voters still remember the attacks and, of those who remember, 70% view Brown unfavorably.
• US’s campaign had reach – in an exit poll, 68% of voters saw or heard advertising supporting Rubens and 84% remembered advertising opposing Brown.
• Our campaign significantly increased Rubens’ visibility and favorability. In July, Rubens was familiar with only 36% of voters and polled at 9%. The race ended with Rubens at 23.5% of the vote and 58% familiarity among Republican primary voters.
• Campaign finance reform was a key issue in the race - 37% of voters said that reducing the corrupting influence of money in politics was a major factor in their vote. Of these voters, 29% said Rubens would do a better job addressing this issue.
• Rubens performed best among reform voters with 36% of the vote, just shy of Scott Brown at 37%.
• Money in politics is an important issue to voters’ feelings toward candidates in Republican primary races. With a targeted campaign, Mayday.US was able to mobilize people passionate about this issue to turn out to vote – even for a relatively unknown candidate.

RESULTS IN ARIZONA’S 7th DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY

• US transformed campaign finance reform from an issue that would make 41% of people more likely to support a candidate to an important issue for over 60% of voters and “the most important issue to their vote” for 27% of voters in Arizona’s 7th Congressional District.
• In this district, 42% of these issue voters went on to vote for Gallego, contributing to his almost 13-point win in the primary election.
• On average, 45% of people who saw our mailers and videos said they made them “much more likely to vote for Gallego” – and a majority went on to do so.

RESULTS IN KANSAS’ SENATE RACE

• Money in politics was a key issue that Orman won – 70% of voters who find Citizens United unfavorable. Among these voters, Orman leads Roberts by 37 percentage points.
• Voters concerned about campaign finance reform were a key part of Orman’s base – among those who said they would vote for Orman, 80% do not support rules allowing corporations and billionaires to spend unlimited money.
• Post-election polling shows that politicians putting their own interests ahead of the people they represent is an important voting issue for 78% of voters.
• Likewise, politicians putting the interests of big-money campaign donors ahead of the people they represent is also an important voting issue for the vote of 73% of voters.

RESULTS IN IOWA’S 3rd DISTRICT

• The majority of likely voters (62%) were concerned about the impact of big money donors. Among these voters, Staci Appel enjoyed a 28 point lead.
• Appel had the most significant lead with the campaign finance reform audience. Among the 27% of voters who do not favor Citizens United, 74% supported Appel – for a 55 point lead.
• Again – post-election polling shows that politicians putting their own interests ahead of the people they represent is an important voting issue for 64% of voters.
• Likewise, politicians putting the interests of big-money campaign donors ahead of the people they represent is also an important voting issue for the vote of 68% of voters.

RESULTS IN NEW HAMPSHIRE’S 1st DISTRICT

• We mobilized 70% of New Hampshire voters concerned about the influence of big money campaign donors on our democracy – 10% of whom were undecided in this close race.
• Mayday’s investment helped give Carol Shea-Porter a boost in the most critical advertising window of any campaign – right before the election.
• Overall, post-election polling shows that politicians putting their own interests ahead of the people they represent is an important voting issue for 76% of voters.
• Likewise, politicians putting the interests of big-money campaign donors ahead of the people they represent is also an important voting issue for the vote of 68% of voters.

RESULTS IN NORTH CAROLINA’S 3rd DISTRICT

• MAYDAY.US supported incumbent Walter Jones in this race – the only Republican Member of Congress to publicly support changing the way campaigns are funded.
• Although Jones did not have a competitive race – MAYDAY.US engaged with voters in this district via mail and radio advertising.
• 82% of voters in this district said it was important to their vote whether politicians put their own interests ahead of the people they represent, according to a post-election survey.
• In addition, 74% of voters in this district also felt that putting the interests of big money campaign donors ahead of the people they represent is important to their vote.

C) Did we learn lessons that will prepare us for 2016? Yes.

This election taught us some important lessons, and highlighted one important constraint.

1. First, reform is important, but partisan loyalty is more important when voters see control of a legislative chamber at stake: The data demonstrate that we could make the issue of corruption salient to voters, and thereby move the approval ratings and positive and negatives of candidates on the basis of reform. But especially in the current partisan environment, that movement was not enough to resist strong partisan voting.
2. Second, it is easier to win voters in safe seats than in partisan battle ground seats: Following from the first lesson, we saw a significant difference in the willingness of both Republicans and Democrats to support the issue of reform in safe, rather than divided, seats. Though we didn't have enough opportunities in primaries to prove this point, the data suggest that it is much easier to rally both Democratic and Republican voters to reform, when the voters don't perceive their decision as affecting the ultimate likelihood of their party's candidates to prevail in the general election. Put differently, if partisanship doesn't matter — because the seat is a safe seat anyway — voters are more willing to be moved on the basis of reform.
3. Third, transparency has its costs: [MAYDAY.US](http://MAYDAY.US/) committed to full transparency about its donors (over $200). That commitment was costly. Because our large contributors were known, it was easier for at least one powerful incumbent to leverage his power against our contributors.
4. Fourth, reform requires a candidate: We were proud of the candidates we supported, but the strongest races were with candidates willing to openly and vigorously champion the issue we pressed. This is a difficult challenge, given the unwillingness of most media to even raise the issue. In the New Hampshire Senate Primary, for example, even though our candidate was the only Republican running for Senate _in the nation _who had made campaign funding an issue, not a single question in the one debate asked candidates about this issue. Victory will require Zephyr-Teachout-like candidates passionate on the issue, and a willingness among candidates to force the issue into the campaign.
5. Fifth, victory is not the only motivator: We entered the races we did to win, but we obviously recognized with at least some of the races we entered that victory wasn't likely. But our objective is to create an incentive sufficient to motivate a majority in Congress to get on the right side of reform. In the four biggest races we entered, our intervention was a significant tax on our opponent, forcing him to spend significantly to neutralize the effect of our campaign. The threat of that tax will motivate other candidates to avoid the risk of a similar fight.
6. Sixth, and finally, bandwidth is limited: However difficult it was to persuade voters, it was just as difficult to get the media to understand the strategy of our campaign. The simple binary framing of electoral politics makes is hard to demonstrate the effect of interventions within the margin. In 2012, for example, Karl Rove had a powerful impact on American politics, even if he won no elections, because his interventions restricted the options of candidates on the other side. Yet this truth is hard to convey in a framework where the only measure of success is whether a candidate has won or lost.

2014 was our opening move in the fight. In 2016, armed with the progress and lessons from this cycle, our reform movement will be even stronger.