Outside groups are poised to pour unprecedented millions into Southern Arizona, clamoring for your attention as the June 12 election to replace Gabrielle Giffords draws near.
A combination of factors suggest so-called "super PACs" are ready to land in Congressional District 8, along with other outside groups that try to influence voters. Super PACs emerged from two 2010 court decisions that banned limits both on corporate spending and on donations to independent advocacy groups.
"There's going to be a lot of money sloshing around this year," said Robert Kelner, a Washington, D.C., attorney who specializes in campaign finance. "I think pretty much any competitive election this year is going to be bathed in outside money."
But this campaign is attractive to outsiders for reasons beyond the fact that it is a true swing district, where registered Republicans narrowly outnumber Democrats and either party could win.
• The run-up to the primary election is abbreviated, which leaves less time for door-knocking and similar grassroots politicking, as well as fundraising for the candidates' campaigns.
• The shooting of Giffords makes the seat emotionally meaningful to Democrats, possibly increasing their motivation to keep it.
• The parties may want to demonstrate momentum going into the presidential election, and get the advantage of incumbency for the November general election in the district, by winning the special election.
State Sen. Frank Antenori underlined the national significance of the race after announcing his candidacy for the Republican nomination on Friday.
"You have to remember the strategic importance of this election," he said. "This is going into November. This is going to be a bellwether. Both parties have significant interest in the outcome of this race, and they will definitely bring every resource available."
Big amounts spent
In the 2010 campaign, before the era of super PACs dawned, Democrat Giffords' and Republican Jesse Kelly's campaigns raised and used huge amounts of money. Giffords' campaign spent $3.6 million, while Kelly's spent $1.6 million.
Independent groups spent $1.1 million, 57 percent of it benefiting Kelly. The 60-Plus Association, a conservative advocacy group for seniors, spent the most, putting $284,000 toward TV ads and mailings against Giffords. The Sierra Club was the second-biggest independent group spending on the 2010 campaign, putting $180,000 toward ads supporting Giffords.
But that was when so-called super PACs were in their infancy. These groups, formally called "independent expenditure only committees" resulted from two 2010 court rulings: the SpeechNow case, which struck down limits on contributions to independent advocacy groups; and the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, which struck down a ban on corporate spending on elections.
Since then, especially in this year's Republican presidential primary races, super PACs have become powerful players. The principal rules governing them are that they must disclose their donors and their spending, and they may not coordinate their activities with campaign organizations. But there are no limits on how much they can accept.
special elections
In each of two recent special-election campaigns for the U.S. House of Representatives, one in Oregon and one in New York state, independent groups including super PACs have spent around $2 million. And the election in Oregon's first congressional district hasn't even happened yet.
In New York's 26th District, the House Majority PAC, a recently formed super PAC, helped Democrat Kathy Hochul win a Republican-majority district by contributing almost $400,000 toward TV ads.
"We were keeping our eye on it, and we kept seeing public polling that showed it was particularly close," said Alixandria Lapp, the executive director of the group. "We went in, did our own poll and tried to assess if (A) the race was winnable, and (B) if our involvement would make a difference.
"The race was clearly winnable. We thought we could make a difference."
That's the same assessment Lapp's super PAC will likely make in Southern Arizona, she said.
"Our mission is to help Democrats win House elections, and we want to keep this district Democratic, so we'll be watching the race very closely," she said.
Lapp's group has counterparts on the Republican side, such as a newly founded super PAC called the Congressional Leadership Fund.
Other groups, such as some connected to Karl Rove's American Crossroads group, work under separate rules. They are formed as "social welfare" groups regulated by the Internal Revenue Service, not as electioneering groups. As a result, they must report their spending to the Federal Election Commission, but they don't have to disclose their donors.
In the New York state race, American Crossroads spent $690,000 in support of Republican Jane Corwin, who ended up losing.
Limited campaign time
The short time candidates have to start up their campaigns makes it more likely that outside groups will throw their money in, some candidates and party officials said. Candidates will have less time to raise their own money and less time for traditional, time-consuming activities such as door-knocking.
"With a longer time frame, you can focus more on grassroots activities and grassroots organizations," said Jeff Rogers, chairman of the Pima County Democratic Party. "With the shorter time frame, the less of that you can do, and the more cash can go into billboards, television ads, radio ads. You end up getting a lot more bang in a shorter period of time."
Longtime Republican fundraiser and official John Munger isn't so sure the time between the primary and the general election will be restrictive. Normally, he noted, the time between those elections is a little over 60 days. This year, the primary and general election will be 57 days apart.
The shorter time frame for candidates just starting their campaigns would generally benefit experienced politicians, who have the contacts and organization in place to reignite their campaigns quickly, said John Ellinwood, spokesman for Jesse Kelly, who ran a tough campaign against Giffords in 2010 and is expected to announce his candidacy this week.
But this is another area where independent spending can make a difference, said Kelner, the campaign finance attorney.
"A super PAC can come to the rescue of a less well-known or less-well-funded candidate and make him viable in a way that would not be the case before super PACs came into existence," he said.
Another factor, said Jim Kolbe, who held the Congressional District 8 House seat before Giffords, is the looming election for the new Congressional District 2 in November. Most of that district overlaps the current District 8.
"If all the candidates decide they have to win the first race in order to be the lead candidate for the second race," Kolbe said, "then they're going to have to go all out."
On StarNet: Find election news at azstarnet.com/election
Types of GROUPS WITH NEW SPENDING CLOUT
Two types of groups are emerging as major players in elections this year, thanks to a pair of 2010 federal court decisions. The Citizens United and SpeechNow decisions eliminated limits on corporate spending on campaigns and banned limits on donations to independent advocacy groups.
• Super PACs - This is a nickname for groups formally known as "independent expenditure only committees." They may collect unlimited donations, but they must report their donors, the donations and their expenditures to the Federal Election Commission. Their spending is available for viewing at fec.gov
• 501(c)4 or "social welfare" groups - These organizations are regulated by the Internal Revenue Service and need not reveal the source of their donations, which are unlimited. However, they must reveal what they spend on influencing campaigns to the Federal Election Commission, and they must act independently of candidates' campaign organizations.
Star reporters Rob O'Dell and Brady McCombs contributed to this report. Contact reporter Tim Steller at 807-8427 or at tsteller@azstarnet.com