PANAMA CITY — In just the first three weeks of October, more than $2 million has been spent trying to influence voters in Florida’s 2nd Congressional District by groups with no official connection to either Congressman Steve Southerland’s campaign or that of his challenger, Democrat Gwen Graham.
Independent expenditures already have reached unprecedented levels, and the money spent on the race could top $10 million in the nine days before Election Day. With all that cash flooding the airwaves with ads that range from true to misleading at best, nobody — from the candidates to nonpartisan organizations and especially television viewers — will get to Nov. 4 unscathed.
An ad released last week by the National Education Association (NEA) Advocacy Fund ruffled some feathers at the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) by using the organization’s name and logo without authorization in an ad opposing Southerland.
“Florida politicians and their campaign teams know AARP Florida is nonpartisan, and they shouldn’t misuse our name,” State Director Jeff Johnson said in a release. “It’s unfortunate third-party groups from outside the state have yet to learn that.”
The ad says Southerland voted for a budget that would have cut Medicare funding and saddled ballot-loving seniors with thousands of dollars in increased health care costs. AARP did issue a statement criticizing the budget plan back in 2011.
AARP spokesman Dave Bruns said a 30-second TV ad is no way to have a discussion on something as important as the future of Medicare.
“That is a debate that should be had within the context of a debate on legislation,” Bruns said. “We want to be — and our members certainly deserve to be — a part of a discussion on Medicare, but not like this.”
Though the ad features a disclaimer noting responsibility for the content of the ad lies with the NEA and not any candidate, and though Johnson’s statement on behalf of AARP seems to absolve any candidate of responsibility for the ad, Southerland’s campaign spokesman Matt McCullough said it was evidence of a dirty campaign.
“Gwen Graham and her liberal D.C. allies have repeatedly twisted the truth and bent the rules to score political points,” McCullough said. “Every time they get caught, they try to wash their hands of it and shift the blame elsewhere. We’re confident voters are going to see through these false attacks and hold Gwen Graham responsible for the negative campaign she’s running.”
Graham campaign spokesman Eric Conrad didn’t want to comment on AARP’s flap with NEA, saying AARP’s statement made it clear Graham’s campaign had nothing to do with the ad.
AARP would like the NEA to pull the ad from the airwaves, Bruns said. The NEA didn’t respond to a request for comment.
Drop in the bucket
Even if the NEA did pull the ads, it would have almost no impact on the number of political ads airing locally.
It’s not the first time AARP has had its message used to suit the purposes of some group advocating for this or that politician, but it is the first time it’s happened in Northwest Florida. Outside groups had spent $5,316,297.89 on the District 2 race as of Tuesday.
That’s already more than twice as much as outsiders spent here in the last midterm election in 2010, which was the first national election after the U.S. Supreme Court decided Citizens United and unleashed an unprecedented level of political spending.
Earlier this year, the high court followed up with a decision that said an outside group need not be constrained by facts or truth in their ads; the responsibility for determining what is or is not true lies with the citizen.
“So it is legal to lie,” said Charles Barrilleaux, political science professor at Florida State University.
The spending is evidence of just how much the national Republican and Democratic parties want District 2. In Florida, only District 13, a swing district covering Clearwater and part of St. Petersburg, has seen more outside spending, according to the Federal Elections Commission.
The National Republican Congressional Committee has spent more than $400,000 to support Southerland and more than $1.4 million to oppose Graham. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has spent more than $1.5 million, all of it to oppose Southerland.
Negative tone
There’s evidence to support the notion that the campaign has been largely negative in tone.
Independent expenditures can be made either in support of or in opposition to a candidate, and evidently the spenders in District 2 are not feeling too supportive this year. Less than $1.5 million has been spent in support of either candidate, but nearly $4 million has been spent to oppose one candidate or the other.
Neither Southerland nor Graham has publicly condemned any of their outside supporters, despite urging from their opponents. But both have complained publicly about the outside spending, and both say they have been victims of mischaracterizations by the largely unaccountable outside groups.
“First I would like to concur with Congressman Southerland’s recognition that there is way too much outside money in this race,” Graham said in her opening remarks during a recent debate. “And the outside ads that are being run against me, there’s not a single one of them that’s true, and I’m sure Congressman Southerland would agree.”
The outsiders are distorting a message that would be better left for the candidates to deliver, McCullough said.
“It’s gotten harder and harder for candidates to cut through the clutter when a barrage of negative ads from outside groups are blanketing the airwaves,” he said. “At the end of the day, it’s the direct connection between candidates and the voters that should determine elections.”
Graham said she would support legislation designed to reduce the influence of outside spending on American politics.
Between the $5.3 million outside groups have spent and the $4 million total the candidates have combined to spend so far, the price tag for this election alone could surpass $10 million.