[h=3]By BRODY MULLINS And MELANIE TROTTMAN[/h] WASHINGTON—Big Democratic interest groups such as labor unions and environmental organizations are largely bypassing President Barack Obama's re-election and pouring millions of dollars instead into congressional races.
Since June, these groups have outspent Republican super PACs by a two-to-one margin in House races, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of advertising spending.
The groups are lagging financially in Senate races overall, but have outdone Republicans in some individual contests by pooling resources.
In one Michigan House race, Democratic groups are outspending their GOP rivals eight to one. Unions have come to the aid of Democratic Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren in Massachusetts. And environmental groups appear to have helped put a New Mexico Senate seat for now in the Democratic column.
Every House member faces re-election every two years, but only a few dozen races typically are true tossups. This year is no exception, which helps explain why the money spent by the interest groups on both sides is concentrated in less than 40 races that Democrats are targeting in hopes of narrowing the GOP's majority in the House.
Democratic-leaning groups appear to have decided that Mr. Obama will do OK without their support. In addition, they say ad spending in the presidential race is too crowded for them to make a difference and that by joining together, they think they can move the needle in individual congressional races.
Since June, pro-Democratic groups have spent about $14.5 million on ads in House races, compared with $7.9 million for Republican organizations, the Journal analysis of spending records shows.
Some Republican-leaning groups, caught off guard, have kicked off a late ad blitz. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce started a $3.3 million campaign in California last week and then launched at least $1 million in advertisements in Illinois.
"We have recognized the spending by the Democratic groups and it has been impressive, but now we are getting down to the serious time," said Scott Reed, senior political strategist for the Chamber. "Our goal is to make sure that we keep a pro-business Speaker."
Dan Conston, a spokesman for a leading pro-Republican super PAC focusing on House races, said "the vast majority of our spending will occur in the final weeks of the election."
Another major Republican player, the Karl Rove-backed American Crossroads, has focused its spending on helping Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. Jonathan Collegio, the group's spokesman, said it has no plans for the super PAC to get heavily involved in House races in the next few weeks.
The House Majority PAC, stocked with money from more than a dozen labor unions, is the biggest player thus far in House races. It has spent nearly $10 million on ads in support of Democrats since June. Several other Democratic-leaning groups are running their own ads in House races, including the Sierra Club, Service Employees International Union and American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.
Their spending mirrors that of the official campaign committees for Democrats in the House and Senate, which each have raised more than their Republican counterparts.
As of Aug. 30, Mr. Obama had $125 million in the bank to spend between his campaign, the Democratic National Committee and another fundraising entity—less than the $170 million total for Mr. Romney and the comparable Republican entities.
But Federal Election Commission rules limit the amount the Republican National Committee can spend in coordination with Mr. Romney's campaign to about $22 million of the roughly $75 million it controls. The remainder can be spent on behalf of Mr. Romney, but television ads can't be designed with the help of the Romney campaign.
In addition, the RNC doesn't qualify for discounted advertising rates that are afforded by law to the presidential candidates. That means it will cost the RNC more to pay for television advertising.
At the same time, a crop of Republican super PACs have been spending millions of dollars to help Mr. Romney's campaign. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, two leading GOP super PACs—American Crossroads and Restore Our Future—have spent $116.6 million so far, much of it on the presidential races. The leading Democratic super PAC, Priorities USA Action, has spent $33.4 million.
Those figures don't including money spent by affiliated organizations that don't have to file fundraising reports with the FEC. Still, Democrats no longer think Mr. Obama will be overwhelmed by spending from Republican super PACs, freeing Democratic interest groups to focus on Congress. "Everyone feels like in the presidential race we are going to get outspent, but we will have enough money to get our message out," said Michael Lux, a Democratic consultant who works with several unions and liberal organizations
Other pro-Democratic groups made a strategic decision to focus on races where they hope to have more impact, compared with the saturated campaign for the White House. Maggie Kao, a spokeswoman for the Sierra Club, said the group hasn't spent much money on television ads to help Mr. Obama "mainly because it's so difficult to break through." Smaller amounts of cash go much further in congressional elections.
In a closely watched Iowa race, two big labor unions and a leading pro-Democratic super PAC have spent $650,000 on ads for Democratic challenger Christie Vilsack, who is seeking to unseat Republican Rep. Steve King. Pro-Republican groups have spent half that amount.
In Michigan's Upper Peninsula, pro-Republican groups have spent about $100,000 on ads for incumbent Rep. Dan Benishek. On the Democratic side, three entities have each exceeded that total for challenger Gary McDowell, the biggest being $350,000 from the League of Conservation Voters. In all, Democratic organizations have outspent conservative groups 8-to-1 in the race.
Similarly, the Afscme union spent $860,000 on ads opposing Republican Rep. Jim Renacci, who's running against Democrat Rep. Betty Sutton in Ohio's 16th congressional district.
The Democrats' House Majority PAC has kicked in another $360,000 in support of Ms. Sutton. The race is one of the most competitive in the country because redrawn district lines forced two incumbent members to square off. The two groups combined are besting the $1 million spent by the main GOP group in the race, the Congressional Leadership Fund, on behalf of Mr. Renacci.
Also playing a big role in the congressional money race are labor unions, which are required to disclose only a fraction of the amount they spend on elections. For example, they don't have to disclose much of the money they spend persuading their members to vote for candidates in elections.
But what is known is that unions have donated twice as much to super PACs devoted to helping Democrats win House and Senate races as they have to the main super PAC helping Mr. Obama.
"Are we focused down-ballot? Yes," Richard Trumka, the president of the AFL-CIO, a labor federation that includes 56 unions, said at a news conference.
Mr. Trumka is trying to help Ms. Warren make up a deficit with white men in her Massachusetts Senate race. "We have a problem because some voters—I'm talking about voters who look just like me—have not stood up," Mr. Trumka said during a recent campaign stop in Boston.
Members of multiple unions have gone door-to-door rallying union members to vote for Ms. Warren. Union members also are active in Missouri, helping Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill.
Republican groups overall are still spending more money in Senate races than Democratic ones, a reminder of what a few months ago was a strong sense that GOP control of the chamber was in reach. Still, in a few important contests, Democrats have pooled their resources to counter the spending by Republicans.
The Senate race in New Mexico was considered a tossup in June when American Crossroads and other pro-Republican groups began spending about $2 million on advertisements for former Republican Rep. Heather Wilson. Five environmental groups teamed up to spend $2 million on their own advertisements attacking Ms. Wilson's positions on energy issues.
"We thought that if we pooled our resources, we could go head-to-head with Crossroads," said Navin Nayak, who runs the political team at the League of Conservation Voters. Other environmental groups involved in New Mexico include the Sierra Club and the National Resources Defense Council.
The attacks by the environmental groups helped Democrat Martin Heinrich build a lead in the polls. Within months, political handicappers said Democrats were favored. By early September, the campaign arm of Senate Republicans essentially conceded the race and cut off spending.
"Environmental extremists spent millions of dollars falsely attacking Heather Wilson because she opposes their radical agenda that would kill thousands of good jobs and increase the utility bills of every working family," said Chris Sanchez, a spokesman for the Wilson campaign.
Write to Brody Mullins at [email protected] and Melanie Trottman at [email protected]
Since June, these groups have outspent Republican super PACs by a two-to-one margin in House races, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of advertising spending.
The groups are lagging financially in Senate races overall, but have outdone Republicans in some individual contests by pooling resources.
In one Michigan House race, Democratic groups are outspending their GOP rivals eight to one. Unions have come to the aid of Democratic Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren in Massachusetts. And environmental groups appear to have helped put a New Mexico Senate seat for now in the Democratic column.
Every House member faces re-election every two years, but only a few dozen races typically are true tossups. This year is no exception, which helps explain why the money spent by the interest groups on both sides is concentrated in less than 40 races that Democrats are targeting in hopes of narrowing the GOP's majority in the House.
Democratic-leaning groups appear to have decided that Mr. Obama will do OK without their support. In addition, they say ad spending in the presidential race is too crowded for them to make a difference and that by joining together, they think they can move the needle in individual congressional races.
Since June, pro-Democratic groups have spent about $14.5 million on ads in House races, compared with $7.9 million for Republican organizations, the Journal analysis of spending records shows.
Some Republican-leaning groups, caught off guard, have kicked off a late ad blitz. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce started a $3.3 million campaign in California last week and then launched at least $1 million in advertisements in Illinois.
"We have recognized the spending by the Democratic groups and it has been impressive, but now we are getting down to the serious time," said Scott Reed, senior political strategist for the Chamber. "Our goal is to make sure that we keep a pro-business Speaker."
Dan Conston, a spokesman for a leading pro-Republican super PAC focusing on House races, said "the vast majority of our spending will occur in the final weeks of the election."
Another major Republican player, the Karl Rove-backed American Crossroads, has focused its spending on helping Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. Jonathan Collegio, the group's spokesman, said it has no plans for the super PAC to get heavily involved in House races in the next few weeks.
The House Majority PAC, stocked with money from more than a dozen labor unions, is the biggest player thus far in House races. It has spent nearly $10 million on ads in support of Democrats since June. Several other Democratic-leaning groups are running their own ads in House races, including the Sierra Club, Service Employees International Union and American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.
Their spending mirrors that of the official campaign committees for Democrats in the House and Senate, which each have raised more than their Republican counterparts.
As of Aug. 30, Mr. Obama had $125 million in the bank to spend between his campaign, the Democratic National Committee and another fundraising entity—less than the $170 million total for Mr. Romney and the comparable Republican entities.
But Federal Election Commission rules limit the amount the Republican National Committee can spend in coordination with Mr. Romney's campaign to about $22 million of the roughly $75 million it controls. The remainder can be spent on behalf of Mr. Romney, but television ads can't be designed with the help of the Romney campaign.
In addition, the RNC doesn't qualify for discounted advertising rates that are afforded by law to the presidential candidates. That means it will cost the RNC more to pay for television advertising.
At the same time, a crop of Republican super PACs have been spending millions of dollars to help Mr. Romney's campaign. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, two leading GOP super PACs—American Crossroads and Restore Our Future—have spent $116.6 million so far, much of it on the presidential races. The leading Democratic super PAC, Priorities USA Action, has spent $33.4 million.
Those figures don't including money spent by affiliated organizations that don't have to file fundraising reports with the FEC. Still, Democrats no longer think Mr. Obama will be overwhelmed by spending from Republican super PACs, freeing Democratic interest groups to focus on Congress. "Everyone feels like in the presidential race we are going to get outspent, but we will have enough money to get our message out," said Michael Lux, a Democratic consultant who works with several unions and liberal organizations
Other pro-Democratic groups made a strategic decision to focus on races where they hope to have more impact, compared with the saturated campaign for the White House. Maggie Kao, a spokeswoman for the Sierra Club, said the group hasn't spent much money on television ads to help Mr. Obama "mainly because it's so difficult to break through." Smaller amounts of cash go much further in congressional elections.
In a closely watched Iowa race, two big labor unions and a leading pro-Democratic super PAC have spent $650,000 on ads for Democratic challenger Christie Vilsack, who is seeking to unseat Republican Rep. Steve King. Pro-Republican groups have spent half that amount.
In Michigan's Upper Peninsula, pro-Republican groups have spent about $100,000 on ads for incumbent Rep. Dan Benishek. On the Democratic side, three entities have each exceeded that total for challenger Gary McDowell, the biggest being $350,000 from the League of Conservation Voters. In all, Democratic organizations have outspent conservative groups 8-to-1 in the race.
Similarly, the Afscme union spent $860,000 on ads opposing Republican Rep. Jim Renacci, who's running against Democrat Rep. Betty Sutton in Ohio's 16th congressional district.
The Democrats' House Majority PAC has kicked in another $360,000 in support of Ms. Sutton. The race is one of the most competitive in the country because redrawn district lines forced two incumbent members to square off. The two groups combined are besting the $1 million spent by the main GOP group in the race, the Congressional Leadership Fund, on behalf of Mr. Renacci.
Also playing a big role in the congressional money race are labor unions, which are required to disclose only a fraction of the amount they spend on elections. For example, they don't have to disclose much of the money they spend persuading their members to vote for candidates in elections.
But what is known is that unions have donated twice as much to super PACs devoted to helping Democrats win House and Senate races as they have to the main super PAC helping Mr. Obama.
"Are we focused down-ballot? Yes," Richard Trumka, the president of the AFL-CIO, a labor federation that includes 56 unions, said at a news conference.
Mr. Trumka is trying to help Ms. Warren make up a deficit with white men in her Massachusetts Senate race. "We have a problem because some voters—I'm talking about voters who look just like me—have not stood up," Mr. Trumka said during a recent campaign stop in Boston.
Members of multiple unions have gone door-to-door rallying union members to vote for Ms. Warren. Union members also are active in Missouri, helping Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill.
Republican groups overall are still spending more money in Senate races than Democratic ones, a reminder of what a few months ago was a strong sense that GOP control of the chamber was in reach. Still, in a few important contests, Democrats have pooled their resources to counter the spending by Republicans.
The Senate race in New Mexico was considered a tossup in June when American Crossroads and other pro-Republican groups began spending about $2 million on advertisements for former Republican Rep. Heather Wilson. Five environmental groups teamed up to spend $2 million on their own advertisements attacking Ms. Wilson's positions on energy issues.
"We thought that if we pooled our resources, we could go head-to-head with Crossroads," said Navin Nayak, who runs the political team at the League of Conservation Voters. Other environmental groups involved in New Mexico include the Sierra Club and the National Resources Defense Council.
The attacks by the environmental groups helped Democrat Martin Heinrich build a lead in the polls. Within months, political handicappers said Democrats were favored. By early September, the campaign arm of Senate Republicans essentially conceded the race and cut off spending.
"Environmental extremists spent millions of dollars falsely attacking Heather Wilson because she opposes their radical agenda that would kill thousands of good jobs and increase the utility bills of every working family," said Chris Sanchez, a spokesman for the Wilson campaign.
Write to Brody Mullins at [email protected] and Melanie Trottman at [email protected]