The Tricky Koch Problem

Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA...I Mean NH) with David Koch

As was illustrated by yesterday morning’s Senate article from the Boston Globe, the Democratic Party is in a bind.  Thanks to large investments from Americans for Prosperity (the nonprofit backed by Charles and David Koch), Scott Brown is kicking off his campaign to serve in the Senate from New Hampshire with gusto-$120k worth of negative ads against his opponent Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D) are set to air in the upcoming weeks.  Shaheen, despite being an incumbent senator and former governor (the first woman in American history to be both) in a state that went for the Democrats the last three presidential cycles, is being outspent 4-1 against a man who two years ago was representing an entirely different state in the Senate.  This is a frightening joke, and one that is playing out across the country.

For months the Koch Brothers have run brutal commercials in states like Michigan, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Louisiana, attacking vulnerable Democrats with millions of dollars worth of ads, and the Democrats have been unable to match the amount of dollars the Koch brothers are throwing their way.  That changes a bit this week-the Senate Majority PAC, whose sole purpose is supporting Democratic Senate candidates, is planning a $3 million ad buy in five states attacking the brothers: Arkansas, Colorado, Michigan, Louisiana, and North Carolina, which will be ground zero (it’s getting $1 million of the ad money).  It’s worth noting that New Hampshire is not currently one of those states, something that I’m guessing they will soon reconsider.

The question becomes, though-can this line of attack work?  The Democrats are in a tough position until Citizens United is overturned, as the Republican super donors like the Koch Brothers and Sheldon Adelson have deep pockets that Democrats can only dream of utilizing.  The Democrats do, of course, have super-donors: Tom Steyer, Michael Bloomberg, David Geffen, and Jeffrey Katzenberg all spring to mind.  However, these men aren’t as strategic or involved as the Koch Brothers are, and quite frankly, they aren’t as rich.  You’d have to start tapping into someone like Warren Buffett to match them, and he’s been largely unwilling to get into politics at this level.

So their best bet is to attack the Koch Brothers on a personal level.  The ads sort of write themselves, “out-of-state billionaires try to buy Senate seat,” but they do come with a price.  People don’t typically pay attention to where their political ads are coming from, and it’s not like the commercials say “paid for by the Koch Brothers.”  This involves a bit of public education, and the adage “when you’re explaining, you’re losing” means that the Democrats have a further uphill battle here.

The question also becomes do people manage to separate the difference between what the Koch Brothers are doing and whether they influence their votes.  People will say every election cycle that they loathe negative campaigning, that they want a campaign based on the issues, and yet study-after-study-after-study has shown that negative campaigning is wildly effective.  If people are seeing a barrage of attack ads against someone like Gary Peters or Jeanne Shaheen, regardless of whether the attacks are true or not , how long before they start to assume the worst?

The reality is, though, that what the Koch Brothers are doing is a pretty scary proposition-two men can buy millions of dollars worth of ads in your market, and you have little to no knowledge about them.  When it’s a specific candidate endorsing the ad or a specific party, you can at least find a way to hold them responsible at the ballot box.  The Koch Brothers won’t be on any ballots come November, and yet they will have become one of, if not the driving forces of the election.  So the Senate Majority PAC has a huge and important burden on its shoulders as it launches this line of attack-can it curb what could be the single most dominant force in the Republican Party for this midterms, or will they fall based on too little money?