In the end, millions spent on ads influenced few voters

— Record spending by independent groups largely defined how the 2012 election races were fought, but the money had no discernible impact on the outcome of most contests, according to an early analysis by The Washington Post of ballot results and expenditures.

A group of conservative billionaires and privately held corporations fueled nearly $1 billion in spending by super PACs and nonprofit groups this cycle, unleashing a wave of attack ads unrivaled in U.S. history. Yet, Republican groups and their donors failed to achieve their two overarching goals - to unseat President Barack Obama and return the U.S. Senate to the control of the GOP.

In the Senate, Republicans lost ground, pouring more than $100 million in outside money into a half-dozen seats that went to Democrats. In the presidential race, GOP nominee Mitt Romney and his allies spent more than twice as much as John McCain did in 2008, but took back only red-leaning Indiana and North Carolina for their trouble.

Even in the House, where last-minute surges of cash would seem to stand a good chance of swinging races, GOP money groups struck out repeatedly, according to the Post analysis. In 26 of the most competitive House races, Democratic candidates and their allies were outspent in the final months of the race but pulled out victories anyway. That compares with 11 competitive races where Republicans were outspent and won.

Outside money was the dog that barked but did not bite. Obama and other Democrats had long made dire predictions about the impact of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which allowed corporations and unions to spend unlimited funds on elections and created an entirely new class of wealthy political groups.

The money did dramatically change the focus and character of many campaigns. Candidates up and down the ballot were forced to spend more time than ever raising money, while political advertising funded by outsiders was even more negative than before.

“Its lasting impact will be that it fueled the public’s disgust about politics,” said David Donnelly of the Public Campaign Action Fund, which favors stricter campaign-finance regulations.

Yet, super PACs and secretive nonprofit groups, which spent up to $10 million a day on the presidential race alone, couldn’t move the needle far enough to prevail in nearly any of the big races they targeted.

In the end, the two sidesreached a kind of dreary equilibrium, clogging the airwaves with so many attack ads that Republican groups began airing spots in California and other deep-blue states where they had little chance of victory. By the end of October, more than 1 million commercials had been broadcast in a presidential race that remained close to a dead heat for much of the year.

The two biggest pro-Republican groups, American Crossroads and Restore Our Future, together spent more than $400 million on federal races with relatively little to show for it in the end. Conservative groups tapped a wellspring of funds from energy executives, hedgefund managers and other financiers strongly opposed to Democratic economic policies and eager to oust Obama.

The most generous donors of all, Las Vegas casino magnate Sheldon Adelson and his wife, Miriam, funneled more than $53 million to groups backing Romney, GOP primary hopeful Newt Gingrich and other Republicans. Nearly every candidate the Adelsons supported lost Tuesday, including Senate candidates Richard Mourdock of Indiana, Connie Mack of Florida and Josh Mandel of Ohio.

“I think it shows that it’s not always about the money,” said Rodell Mollineau of American Bridge 21st Century, a small super PAC that spearheaded opposition research efforts forDemocrats. “I don’t think the other side was always very efficient or smart in their spending. There was a lot of discombobulation.”

That is not to say that outside money didn’t matter: It was waves of super PAC money that helped propel Romney to the GOP nomination earlier in the year. But the main effect in the homestretch was to help Romney and other Republicans achieve rough parity with incumbent Democrats, who likely would have outspent GOP candidates otherwise, spending figures show.

More than 250 groups spent $100,000 or more on the 2012 elections, mostly super PACs focused on one candidate or cause, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics. Although dominated by tycoons and financiers such as Adelson, the groups also received help from corporations such as energy giant Chevron, which gave $2.5 million to aHouse Republican super PAC in the final weeks of the campaign.

The deluge fueled a campaign arms race of sorts, as candidates in both parties increasingly focused on the need to raise as much cash as possible for fear of what the other side had in store. Obama held more than twice as many fundraisers as rallies during the long campaign, while Romney’s running mate, U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., was still outraising money in red states less than two weeks before Election Day.

Both sides in the presidential race eclipsed $1 billion, although Romney got there only with significant help from Crossroads, Restore Our Future and other independent groups. Obama pursued a different strategy, raising most of his money in-house and more than half of it from donors giving less than $200.

The approach underlined a crucial vulnerability for GOP super PACs, which generally paid much higher ad rates because of laws giving candidates favorable prices. Even at the end, when Romney and his allies were dramatically outspending Obama, the incumbent still ran more commercials in most swing-state markets.

The effect of all the conservative cash on Senate races was a resounding failure, with only deep-red Nebraska remaining clearly in the GOP column as of Wednesday morning. Crossroads, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other GOP-leaning groups spent at least $87 million targeting Democrats Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Bill Nelson of Florida, Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Tim Kaine of Virginia, Jon Tester of Montana and Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, according to Federal Election Commission data; all emerged victorious Tuesday.

Democrat Heidi Heitkamp in North Dakota also eked out a narrow win in her Senate race; she was pummeled with attack ads funded by financiers and corporate interests.

To be sure, several Republican candidates suffered serious missteps. Mourdock essentially tossed away his chances in GOP-leaning Indiana when he said during a debate that pregnancies from rape were something that “God intended to happen.” Republican groups outspent Democrats 2-to-1 in the race, yet Democrat John Donnelly trounced Mourdock by 11 points.

The single most expensive congressional race was the Senate contest in Virginia between Kaine and Republican George Allen, which attracted more than $50 million in spending by independent groups; Kaine won comfortably. In Connecticut, wrestling company executive Linda McMahon, a Republican, failed in her second try at the Senate, having spent more than $90 million of her fortune in the two races.

One race largely untouched by outside spending was in Massachusetts, where Democratic challenger Elizabeth Warren bested incumbent GOP Sen. Scott Brown. The two candidates had agreed to discourage third-party groups from running ads; the pact ended up benefiting Warren, who raised more campaign money than her opponent.

Front Section, Pages 6 on 11/08/2012

Upcoming Events