House party committees spent $57 million on coordinated ads in two weeks, most of it in 20 districts

By Nora Pembrook

WASHINGTON — The two parties’ House campaign committees spent a combined $57 million in coordination with their candidates in the first two weeks of October, nearly dollar for dollar, and aimed most of it at the same few dozen districts, according to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission on Thursday.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee reported $28.1 million in coordinated party expenditures from Oct. 1 to Oct. 14. The National Republican Congressional Committee reported $28.8 million. An Inquisitor analysis of the line-by-line Schedule F itemizations in both reports found coordinated spending in 60 districts, with both committees spending in 41 of them. Twenty districts accounted for 63 percent of the money.

The reports are the first pre-general filings since the Supreme Court’s June 30 decision in National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, which struck down the federal caps on what parties may spend in coordination with their nominees. Before the ruling, coordinated spending for a House candidate in most states was limited to a fixed amount per election, indexed for inflation. In these reports, the two committees itemized more than $1 million apiece for 16 House candidates — eight Democrats and eight Republicans — in two weeks.

The committees’ books

The DCCC spent down its reserves faster. It began October with $55.8 million and ended the period with $30.7 million, a drop of 45 percent in two weeks, while raising $8.1 million. The NRCC raised more — $13.9 million — and finished with $46.5 million, about $15.8 million more than the DCCC. Neither committee reported any debt.

Over the full year, the NRCC has spent about $22.9 million more in coordination with its candidates than the DCCC has. In the first two weeks of October the gap all but disappeared: the DCCC’s coordinated spending in those 14 days was 46 percent of its total for the year.

The 20 districts

The table below ranks districts by the two committees’ combined coordinated spending, as itemized on Schedule F, where each entry names the candidate it benefits. The Schedule F itemizations for the DCCC total $28.77 million, slightly more than the $28.13 million on its summary page; the Inquisitor used the itemized entries for the district figures. Candidate surnames are as they appear in the filings.

Arizona’s 1st District, an open seat in the Phoenix area, topped the list, with $1.54 million from the DCCC on behalf of Amish Shah and $0.92 million from the NRCC for its candidate. Washington’s 3rd, where Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez faces Republican John Braun, was close behind at $2.43 million combined.

The NRCC’s single largest beneficiary was Scott Singer in Florida’s 25th District, at $1.85 million; the DCCC itemized no coordinated spending in that district in the period. The NRCC also outspent the DCCC by wide margins in North Carolina’s 11th ($1.78 million to $0.49 million), California’s 13th ($1.44 million to $0.45 million) and Virginia’s 1st ($1.15 million to $0.62 million).

The DCCC’s biggest edges were in New York’s 17th, where it spent $1.45 million for Cait Conley against Rep. Mike Lawler, for whom the NRCC spent $0.50 million, and in Wisconsin’s 3rd, where it spent $1.14 million for Rebecca Cooke to the NRCC’s $0.11 million for Rep. Derrick Van Orden. In Pennsylvania’s 1st and 10th, the DCCC outspent the NRCC on behalf of Robert Harvie and Janelle Stelson by roughly $400,000 and $350,000.

Of the 41 districts where both committees spent, the DCCC spent more in 23 and the NRCC in 18. The DCCC spent in 11 districts where the NRCC itemized nothing, including Florida’s 13th and 23rd and Alabama’s 2nd; the NRCC spent in eight where the DCCC itemized nothing, including Florida’s 7th and 25th, Alaska’s at-large seat and Ohio’s 10th.

By state

Grouped by state, Florida drew the most coordinated money, $7.33 million across seven districts, with Republicans spending $4.27 million there to Democrats’ $3.07 million. Michigan was second at $6.08 million across four districts — the 4th, 7th, 8th and 10th — split almost evenly between the parties. Texas, where both committees spent in five districts, including the 15th, 28th and 34th in South Texas, was third at $5.64 million.

North Carolina stands out for the gap between the parties: the NRCC spent more than twice as much as the DCCC there, most of it in the 11th District, where Republican Jennifer Balkcom was the NRCC’s second-largest beneficiary nationally. In the 1st District, the NRCC spent $0.65 million on behalf of Republican Laurie Buckhout and the DCCC $0.54 million on behalf of Rep. Don Davis.

Who got paid

The DCCC’s Schedule F entries were overwhelmingly media buys: $28.18 million of the $28.77 million itemized, with $0.41 million for mail and $0.15 million for canvassing. The NRCC’s mix leaned more on mail: $24.45 million for media and $4.39 million for postage and printing. Its largest payees were Groundswell Public Strategies (GPS Impact) at $2.53 million, AL Media at $2.42 million, Fight Agency at $2.21 million, Three Point Media at $2.10 million, Technicolor Campaigns at $1.79 million and Middle Seat Consulting at $1.43 million. Next was Conexion Political at $1.38 million.

The NRCC’s largest payees were OnMessage Inc. at $3.75 million, Smart Media Group at $3.14 million, Brabender Cox at $2.59 million, SRCP Media at $2.11 million, Flexpoint Campaigns at $2.09 million and Gen2 Solutions at $2.05 million, followed by Strategic Media Placement at $1.93 million. The NRCC’s top six vendors together received $15.73 million, more than half of its itemized coordinated spending; the DCCC’s top six received $12.48 million, about 43 percent.

What the numbers leave out

Party coordinated spending is only one stream of money in House races. The candidates’ own campaigns and the parties’ allied super PACs — House Majority PAC on the Democratic side and the Congressional Leadership Fund on the Republican side — report separately, and super PAC independent expenditures are disclosed in 24-hour reports in the final weeks. A district where one committee itemized little coordinated spending in early October may still be heavily contested by other groups.

The figures also do not show what the committees are holding back. The NRCC ended the period with $46.5 million in the bank, enough to match the DCCC’s entire Oct. 1–14 outlay and still have money left. The DCCC’s $30.7 million is slightly less than the $33.2 million it spent in the period. With no federal cap on coordinated spending after the June ruling, either committee can now direct as much of that cash as it chooses to individual nominees in the final weeks, subject to the individual contribution limits that govern how the parties raise it.

Coordinated expenditures are reported when they are made, so a payment to a media firm in the first two weeks of October may cover advertising that runs through Election Day. The committees’ post-general reports, due Dec. 3, will cover activity from Oct. 15 through Nov. 23.

The Inquisitor sent requests for comment early Friday to the DCCC and NRCC at the addresses on their FEC registrations; to the campaigns of Shah, Singer, Gluesenkamp Perez and Braun; and to the FEC press office and OpenSecrets, asking about the committees’ spending decisions and how the June ruling has changed party spending. None had responded by publication. This story will be updated with any response.

Photo: The west side of the U.S. Capitol. Martin Falbisoner / Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 3.0.