#michael franz

[theories-of]

michael franz

[theories-of]

michael franz

[theories-of]

michael franz 

[theories-of]

michael franz

[theories-of]

michael franz

[thecrowdwire]

The New Watch-Dogs

Lesson #5: Super-PAC-funded ads did not swing the 2012 election but could be a potent force in the future. Energetic individuals and organizations are working hard to make the new world of campaign finance more transparent.

At the start of the campaign season, there were widespread fears about super PACs influencing the election. The worst scenarios, which saw these new fundraising organizations essentially taking over politics, were not realized. It's generally agreed that $500M in super PAC-funded ads didn't decide the election.

We've noted that as social media increasingly frame the election conversation, TV ads seem to be declining in influence. But that could easily change as the business of politics responds to the new media landscape and advertising itself evolves.

So campaign finance needs to be closely watched, and there's every indication it will be. Concern about super PACs has reignited a longstanding movement to shine a brighter light on political money and the ads it supports. We talked to three leaders in the field, each coming at this challenge from a different direction.

The Journalist

“Super PACs have injected multi-million-dollar contributions from wealthy CEOs, billionaires, and corporate titans into the [political] system, something we haven’t seen since before the post-Watergate reforms of the 1970s.” -Eliza Newlin Carney

In 2010, two Supreme Court rulings gave independent, politically active groups the green light to collect unlimited contributions from any source. Washington journalist Carney, who has been covering campaign finance for years, immediately knew that these PACs would take off and should be aggressively covered. But how to make this complex business comprehensible to the lay person?

“I started thinking about how I could write about them without making readers’ eyes glaze over," Carney told us. "The technical, legal term for these organizations is ‘independent expenditure-only Political Action Committee’ – not something you want to write ten times in a story.”

She started calling them “super PACs” – and the phrase took off.

“Election laws are complicated, even turgid, so it can be challenging to write about them without getting bogged down. I liked ‘super’ because it was short, sharp and punchy, and seemed to capture the notion that these groups could do a lot of things that conventional PACs could not.”

In a few short years, super PACs have indeed transformed the world of political finance. They’ve forced candidates, parties, and their outside allies to raise and spend money much earlier, dramatically front-loading the campaign.

However, she notes, "their greatest impact may be in the congressional and state legislative races. That’s where a last-minute seven-figure ad buy can really tilt the outcome.”

Carney believes super PACs pose a serious threat to American politics. “The two trends unleashed by Citizens United – unrestricted spending and secret money – make for a scandal waiting to happen.”

Thus, she and many other journalists are watching the field closely. “This used to be a beat that I covered alongside a relatively small handful of other reporters. Now I’ve got plenty of company, and the political money stories coming out of major newspapers and investigative nonprofits are breaking new ground.”

Even Stephen Colbert has taken on this subject, using humor to explain the arcane, shell-game aspects of this world.

Carney, too, increased the public's understanding of these organizations by coining the phrase that everyone now uses to talk about them. Though modest about this achievement, she says, “if the term has helped average Americans understand our political system, I’m glad ‘super PAC’ has become part of the national vocabulary.”

The Academic

“The 2012 presidential race had more ads than any previous election.” -Michael Franz

Franz knows political advertising. His organization, the Wesleyan Media Project, has been tracking campaign commercials since the late 1990s. But in these post-Citizens United days, the stakes are even higher.

“With outside groups increasingly prevalent in federal elections, it is imperative that voters know to what extent wealthy groups and donors are bankrolling persuasion efforts on television,” Franz said in a Crowdwire Q & A.

As an academic research organization, the Wesleyan Media Project addresses this challenge without any partisan or ideological agenda, by providing voters with information about who is advertising and at what levels.

Using weekly data from Kantar Media/CMAG, the project codes each TV ad on nearly 100 dimensions including tone, sentiment, issues covered, and the sponsor's identity.

“By appending our coding to the frequency of ad airings, we can then see what kinds of ads are airing where, by whom, and at what levels.”

The 2012 election has kept Franz and his colleagues busy. It’s “broken lots of records with respect to political ads. Both candidates, especially Obama, have aired an incredible number of negative ads. And outside groups, especially in support of Romney, have been extremely active. We never expected to see so many congressional candidates, and a major presidential candidate, so dependent on outside spending.”

Data from the Wesleyan Media Project have allowed political scientists to develop and test sophisticated theories about how ads work in convincing citizens to vote, and to see if ads have any effects on turnout or knowledge of key issues.

“It seems pretty clear that ads “work” in the sense that a great number of ads can move votes in your direction. But because many campaigns wind up with an equal number of ads for each side, the net effect is often zero.”

That might help explain the ads' underwhelming influence in this presidential election.

Meanwhile, Franz believes commercials have an upside. He notes political science has reached consensus that ads do not depress voter turnout; they might even stimulate interest in the election and in some cases, raise turnout.

“Ads are attempts to speak to all voters, and they can sometimes be the only place for a Republican voter to hear what the Democratic candidate has to say, and vice versa.”

The Entrepreneur

“With your TV screaming political messages at you during every commercial break, there’s a tendency to tune out. We were inspired to create something that cuts through the noise, because voters shouldn’t have that hopeless “forget it” feeling.” -Dan Siegel

Entrepreneur Siegel and his colleague Jennifer Hollett wanted to help ordinary Americans make sense of the money game while bringing more transparency to the 2012 presidential election. Their idea: A free mobile application called the Super PAC App.

“Who is behind these ads?" Siegel asked. "What are they saying, and are the claims based on facts?”

Until now, finding answers required hours of homework and probably a trip to town hall. But the Super PAC App uses audio-fingering printing technology to tag political commercials on TV or the web so users can instantly access news outlets and independent fact-checking organizations that have investigated the claims in question.

“Super PAC App won’t tell you if what the ad is claiming is ‘true’ or ‘false,’ but it will connect you with information to make that assessment yourself," Siegel said in our interview.

The application also allows users to provide feedback on how they received the ad – if they loved it, thought it was Fair, Fishy, or a Fail. The result: a sizable new database of political advertising with crowd-sourced ratings.

New Directions

These trailblazing efforts demonstrate that, even in a rapidly changing politico-media environment, a handful of smart, energetic people can substantially increase understanding of how money influences elections.

What next? It's hard to say, but as long as money and politics are intertwined, there will be a need for watch-dogs, and the more, the better. Future initiatives might use social media to give the public a larger role in opening up this world for closer inspection.

[thecrowdwire]

The Archive of Persuasion

We won't know until after Election Day what impact TV ads had on the outcome. But there's no question that ads are changing the nature of politics, thanks to huge increases in fundraising levels and the rise of super PACs. The question is how they're changing it, and it's not easy to answer.

Enter the Wesleyan Media Project, a continuation of the University of Wisconsin Advertising Project. From 1998-2008, the Wisconsin project studied how candidates, political parties, and special interest groups communicated with voters. Now based at Wesleyan University, the project is still run by three of the original graduate students from Wisconsin, now teaching at other universities.

We interviewed co-director Michael Franz about the project’s methods and findings.

What is the basic mission of the Wesleyan Media Project?

What we do is twofold: first, we track and code television ads in real time, which allows us to publicize the intensity and content of the ad wars. This is very hard to do absent the data we have, because campaign finance reports are often not as comprehensive as one would like. Lots of groups do not have to report their spending, for example, and candidate reports to the Federal Election Commission are not detailed enough to know when ads aired.

Second, we archive the data and eventually make it available to scholars for use in their research. Together with the Wisconsin Advertising Project, we have an archive of political ads that stretches back to 1996 and accounts for over 14 million airings.

How does your ad tracking system work?

We buy the raw data from a commercial firm called Kantar Media/CMAG, which has ad trackers in all 210 media markets across the country. These trackers capture and record ads every time they air on local broadcast stations (i.e., local ABC, NBC, CBS, and Fox affiliates) or on national cable.

We get the data on the ad airings weekly, and each individual ad in video form. We then code each ad on nearly 100 dimensions, such as its tone, the issues covered in the ad, and the identity of the sponsor. We even code for whether the ad is likely making an emotional appeal such as humor or fear. By appending our coding to the frequency of ad airings, we can then see what kinds of ads are airing where, by whom, and at what levels.

How does your coding system work? Do you do it by hand?

We code these by human hand, and the tone categories are essentially objective. If an ad only mentions an opponent, it's a negative ad; if it only mentions a supported candidate, it's positive; and if it mentions more than one candidate, it's a contrast ad. Our inter-coder reliability on this measure is very high. For the emotions, we do a lot of training with coders about how to identify those appeals, and as expected, our reliability there is lower. We get strong agreement across coders for emotions like anger, fear, and humor. Pride and enthusiasm are a bit harder to detect or code consistently. We are looking at ways to automate this, and some political science research is arguing for an automated approach over a human coder.

What are your long-term goals for the project? What have you accomplished so far?

Our long-terms goals are to continue adding to the archive in subsequent elections, and also disseminate our results to the broader public. With outside groups increasingly prevalent in federal elections, it is imperative that voters know to what extent wealthy groups and donors are bankrolling persuasion efforts on television. We can speak to that—without any partisan or ideological goal on our part—by simply providing voters with information on who is advertising and at what levels.

To date, scholars have used the ad data from the project in dozens of scholarly articles, book chapters, and books. The data have allowed political scientists to develop and test sophisticated theories about how ads work in convincing voters to vote, and to see if ads have any effects on turnout or knowledge of key issues. Prior to this, the data for testing these effects were indirect and incomplete.

Do you have any hard results to share from this research? Do certain types of ads work better than others?

Great question, and there is no easy answer. It seems pretty clear that ads "work" in the sense that a great number of ads can move votes in your direction. But because many campaigns wind up with an equal number of ads for each side, the net effect is often zero. Travis Ridout and I have a book on this, The Persuasive Power of Campaign Ads, that uses data from the 2000, 2004, 2006, and 2008 elections. And political science has generally reached consensus that ads do not depress turnout; they might even stimulate interest in the election and raise turnout in small amounts. As to what "type" of ad works, the work continues.

What trends have you seen with political ads for the 2012 election?

This presidential race has had more ads than any previous election; both candidates, especially Obama, have aired an incredible number of negative ads; and outside groups, especially in support of Romney, have been extremely active. Even in congressional races, the level of spending from outside groups has been very high. This has been a very interesting election, one that has broken lots of records with respect to political ads.

How does the political ad landscape in swing states compare to other areas of the country?

In the presidential race, it’s simple. If you live in a battleground state, you are probably sick of hearing candidates approve their message by now. If you don’t live in a battleground state, you are being ignored. The only exception is one particularly interesting feature of media markets across the country—they don’t always line up with state boundaries. So some voters in non-battleground states (like Maine or Massachusetts) see ads because of their proximity to battleground states (like New Hampshire, which is covered in part by the Portland, ME and Boston media markets).

Of course, House and Senate races are a lot broader geographically, so voters in lots of places across the country are seeing ads in competitive congressional races.

What is the most surprising thing you’ve learned so far in the 2012 election through this project?

The level of outside spending is astonishingly high. 44% of all pro-Romney ads in October and 33% of all Senate Republican ads in October have come from outside groups. Obama, by contrast, has aired in October about 86% of the ads that support his candidacy. But in comparison to 2008, the level of pro-Obama ads coming from outside groups has risen from about 4% to about 14%. We never expected to see so many congressional candidates, and a major presidential candidate, so dependent on outside spending.

Have you seen anything noteworthy in the Massachusetts Senate race, where the candidates agreed not to allow outside groups to advertise?

That’s what’s interesting. The Brown-Warren pact set up ground rules for trying to prevent outside groups from airing television ads. That’s seemed to work so far. Of course, there are loopholes in the agreement, and outside spending is fairly aggressive in that race, just off the air. We’ve been surprised, though, that the two candidates were able to work out an agreement that made it difficult for groups to air ads during the race. It could conceivably be a model for future races, though it requires both candidates to sign on—and that’s the sticking point.

Does any part of your project involve speaking with the general voting public about their experience with TV ads? If so, what have you found?

We love talking about our work to the general voting public. We generally find that voters express exhaustion at the level of ads on television. Our response, though, is a bit of a defense of such ads. Political ads are still one of the only ways for candidates to speak to a wide spectrum of the public at the same time. Increasingly, voters are consuming less news through television and in print form, and they are getting their news in much more partisan places (especially online). Ads are attempts to speak to all voters, and they can sometimes be the only place for a Republican voter to hear what the Democratic candidate has to say, and vice versa.

Are there any non-political applications for what you’re doing?

One particularly neat application would be to look at the level and intensity of ads for pharmaceuticals. Anyone who watches the nightly national news understands that ads for prescription drugs are almost as ubiquitous as ads for candidates. It would be interesting to compare the frequency of such ads to the demographics of the programs on which they air; and even to see if sales of drugs rise and fall with the frequency of ads.

[holdenreviews]

Bowdoin’s Professor Franz talks money, politics

Michael Franz, an associate professor of government and legal studies at Bowdoin College, delivered a lecture in the “Democracy & the 2012 Election” series last Tuesday night.  The talk focused on the exorbitant spending taking place in this year’s presidential election, and how this spending came to exist.

The basis behind his thesis tied back to the ruling in the Supreme Court case “Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission”, ruled on by the court in 2010.  According to Franz, the ruling here virtually took away any restrictions on how groups can fund political ads.  Some politicians, such as Democrat Alan Grayson, abhorred the decision made, and it is clear why that would be.

Super PACs are now free to spend as they please.  This has so far led to a record amount of spending on this year’s presidential election between incumbent democrat Barack Obama and republican Mitt Romney, seemingly with no end in sight.

According to Franz, there is a “thin-veiled separation” between super PACs and the candidate that they support.  Technically, the rules governing super PACs, laid out shortly after the “Citizens United” case in “SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission”, state that these committees can’t contribute directly to a political candidate.  However, these committees tend to be run by former advisors or associates of the candidates, who know exactly how to press the right buttons during an election season.

The lecture in the Miller Forum at Moyer Hall started off on a light-hearted foot, with Muhlenberg’s own professor Brian Mello introducing Franz as his college roommate their freshman year at Fairfield University.  This led to a hilarious banter between the two successful professors.

The lecture itself, however, was rather bleak.  The problem of money being wasted on the election will only increase in the future, even if it’s no more than the money spent on an ad for a potato chip brand.

Franz tried to put a positive spin by presenting possible reforms to this new way of life in the campaigns, but could barely do so.  He immediately dismissed the idea of elections independent financing, a constitutional amendment, or more disclosure with the super PACs.

Other solutions that he presented were a change in the composition of the Court, which would lead to a reversal of the decision, a use of new iPhone apps to find out where super PACs get their donations from, or the most ludicrous of ideas, an end to watching television.  None of these ideas would get ads off of the television screens of every American in this country.

Though the ending may seem to be depressing, there is hope.  Most members of this community will have the ability to vote in November.  It is the responsibility of the citizen to look past the political jargon and educate themselves on the facts and the issues.  The ads and the spending may always exist and turn political races into name-calling and mud-dragging, but that shouldn’t stop the people from making a responsible decision.

http://www.muhlenbergweekly.com/