Advertising Gets a Boost From the Supreme Court

The U.S. Supreme Court's loosening of restrictions on political ad spending by corporations and others will bring some joy to hard-hit local television stations and make it even more likely that 2010 will be a record year for political ad revenue. The court's ruling lets corporate America start advertising candidates much as they market products and tell viewers to vote for or against them. While it almost certainly will lead to a barrage of hard-hitting TV ads in the 2010 elections, its implications reach far beyond that. The ruling was a victory for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO, the National Rifle Association and other interest groups most likely to run ads with money from their treasuries. It's unlikely major corporations would want their name on an ad, but they can avoid that by giving money to interest groups, who would then run ads and disclose the spending under the groups' names. The Republican National Committee is challenging one of the law's pillars, a ban on corporate and union donations to political parties. Ruling 5-4 in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, the court freed business, unions and nonprofits from some of 2002's McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law. The law had limited political spending by those groups within 30 days of a primary and 60 days of a general election. The case arose over "Hillary: The Movie," a 2008 film by Citizens United -- a conservative group led by veteran Republican campaign operative David Bossie -- that was severely critical of then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. The Federal Elections Committee restricted the film's advertising during the campaign, and a panel of judges agreed, calling the film an extended campaign ad. Conservative groups decried that decision as constraining freedom of speech, leading to Bossie's lawsuit. Thursday's ruling likely will mean hundreds of millions of dollars in ad spending, much of it just before Election Day, will flow to local broadcast TV. Projections for the 2010 elections by TNS Media Intelligence/Campaign Media Analysis Group say total ad spending could exceed the $2.6 million to $2.8 million spent the last two cycles. The decision means a new gusher of money for the TV industry, good news for them in economic hard times. The ruling could deposit as much as 20% more ad spending, roughly $500 million, into the mix. More than half of all ad spending goes to local TV. The Television Bureau of Advertising earlier predicted that $1.5 billion would go to broadcast TV stations for the 2010 election. Now that's going to be more like $1.8 billion. Recent elections in Virginia and New Jersey, and the out-of-nowhere win for the GOP in Massachusetts, have taught both parties that the 2010 midterms will be big. CMAG estimated that $10 million in advertising was spent in the last 10 days of the campaign in the Bay State. Thirty-seven gubernatorial races will be decided in November, including in such high-powered media markets as California, New York, Texas and Ohio. Twenty-one of those seats are open, meaning there will be competitive primaries in the spring. Add to that that one-third of the U.S. Senate and the entire House. In the middle of it all are voters, the people whose opinions the new spending will seek to influence. The court seemed to agree with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's contention that voters want more election ads and that they are craving the viewpoints and information that will be presented in them. But if the country's experience in the years before the McCain-Feingold law, when corporations and unions poured millions of dollars into election-time ads that targeted candidates but stopped short of calling for their election or defeat, is any indication, much of the new ad spending will likely be aimed at turning voters against a particular candidate, rather than urging them to vote for one. That may please voters who do not like the candidate anyway, but it could turn off some voters so much they tune out. Getting key voting blocs to stay home on Election Day can be as important as getting voters to turn out.