Candidates may have been overcharged for television advertisements in the final days of the 2000 election, according to a study by the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign released in early February.
The study reported local stations charged 68 percent, or $1 million, more than the lowest advertising rate for federal and state election candidates.
Debate over campaign-finance reform packages may have prompted the study because of the increasing role of money in political campaigns.
WDC executive director Mike McCabe said the role of money in politics is detrimental to the political process.
“Pressure to raise money for TV ads is at the root of the scandals that now plague state and national politics,” McCabe said upon release of the study.
Although campaign-finance reform bills were recently passed in both the U.S. Senate and House, the McCain-Feingold bill and the Shays-Meehan bill do not address price limits on television advertisements.
State legislators’ reactions to the WDC study have been mixed.
Rep. Marc Duff, R-New Berlin, said television stations are exploiting candidates due to the nature of business.
“It’s unfortunate that television stations are taking advantage of political races so that they can profit from the purchase of these ads when all these candidates are trying to do is inform the public about their candidacy,” Duff said. “But I also have to say that these stations are in business to make money, and there’s only a certain amount of airtime available.”
Bruce Pfaff, chief of staff for state Sen. Theodore Kanavas, R-Elmbrook, refused to comment on the study’s validity but said it is possible to reduce elections costs.
“There’s no statewide voter list in this state with voting histories.” Pfaff said, “You can actually reduce the cost of elections by fine-tuning who you’re communicating with [and] identifying people that are more likely to vote in elections you’re running in and candidates that are similar to you.”
Although the study included candidates for state offices, Brett Healy, chief of staff for Jensen, said it is difficult to apply the study at the state level because there is generally not much television advertising for state elections.
“The study . . . highlights a huge problem for candidates in trying to get their message out today–the incredible costs associated with going on TV,” Healy said.
Rep. Spencer Black, D-Madison and Assembly minority leader, said TV ads are part of a larger issue involving campaign-finance reform.
“When you buy television advertising, it means big money, and unfortunately that big money comes from the special interests that are trying to buy influence,” Black said. “The way to deal with this is to pass comprehensive campaign-finance reform to get the big money out of politics.”
Black said the FCC controls television advertising and the state plays no role in advertising regulations.
“At the state level we can’t effect the costs of TV advertising, but what we can do at the state level is put a sharp limit on how much state ? candidates spend.”
