back to Introduction

Show Me the Money

Part 9: Producing Stories: Ideas and Techniques

by Eric Hauser

The story ideas provided in this section were created by the author as examples for journalists on the kinds of stories they might consider and, while based on fact, are not offered as actual stories to air or print. You and your news organization should conduct your own research before creating stories based upon these examples.

Introduction

The American people do care about the financing of federal, state, and local campaigns for elected office. Voters are concerned that money is unfairly influencing the electoral process and maybe negatively impacting their own lives. But, though it’s a high-profile issue, it is difficult to explain, especially on television and radio.

The most basic issues of money and politics — who has it and where is he/she getting it — are not difficult to trace. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) publishes reams of information, many states provide electronic and other easily-accessed information, and there are web sites dedicated to tracking campaign finance data. But how do stations go about packaging all this in ways viewers and listeners can relate to and easily understand?

This guide tries to answer that question by offering some examples of packages, voice-overs, and scripts designed to tell the stories in a compelling and informative fashion. These story ideas take the viewer and listener into account, focusing on what he or she might be interested in seeing and hearing in order to make the pieces meaningful to diverse audiences.

It is important to convey the impact campaign finance issues have on our everyday lives. The examples here are universal — meaning most are applicable in every state, congressional district, or state legislative district in the country. Anywhere there is an ideological divide or a crucial vote at stake, there is an opportunity to explore campaign finance issues in an interesting, non-traditional way.

The suggestions put forth in this guide are not fully-developed story lines; they are recommendations for fresh angles on the issue and new ways to air it. Every station will have to add its own research and story development to these models. Some are basic educational pieces; others lend themselves to a full 3-minute treatment. Some use humor, others remain serious but bypass political jargon and ponderous data. They all revolve around the three central questions in campaign financing: Where does the money come from? Where does it go? What does it do?

The legal, regulatory, and political dimensions of campaign finance issues can be dense and complicated. The ideas offered in this guide are not intended to address all the complexities and nuances of campaign financing, nor should they be thought of as replacements for sophisticated investigative reporting. For television and radio journalists with ample time, resources, and experience, there are many different levels of this story to explore.

RTNDF does not take a position on campaign finance reform. In this guide, we explore the impact of money in politics simply to enhance your election coverage and help you to show where a candidate’s allegiances might lie, why a political decision was made, and what is at stake. Any references to actual candidates, campaigns, or issues are for illustrative purposes only.

Where Does the Money Come From?

The Turf War

Big business, PACs, advocates, and other special interest groups are gearing up to wage war over your district. It is a high stakes game of “Capture the Flag” — the prize is your member of Congress and your district.

The first step in covering the “Turf War” is to examine where the money is coming from. In 1996, most House members drew the majority of their large donations (those greater than $200) from out of state (77% on average). The following graph illustrates some of the top recipients of out-of-state money.

As you can see, many successful candidates are looking overwhelmingly to non-constituents to support their campaigns, and out-of-district monies are dramatically influencing the outcome of elections.

The second piece to this puzzle is the role special interests (unions, associations, and ideological groups) play in winning a district/state. The special-interests battle usually centers on an ideological issue.

For example, Carolyn McCarthy became an activist for gun control after her husband was killed and her son critically wounded in a Long Island Railroad shooting. The gun used in this shooting was equipped with a high-capacity magazine clip. The clip was outlawed under the federal ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines in 1994. When the issue of the ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines came up for a repeal vote in March of 1996, Mrs. McCarthy’s Representative Daniel Frisa, with the support of the National Rifle Association, voted for the repeal. After the vote, Mrs. McCarthy decided to run for Congress in November, 1996.

The Frisa-McCarthy showdown was seen as a referendum on gun control. Gun control and gun-rights forces spent thousands of dollars on the race. The issue of the gun ban was a constant source of debate. In fact, the fourth district of New York became the “flag” in a game of “Capture the Flag” on gun control. This is a scenario repeated in districts across the country.

A “Capture the Flag” package can include shots and interviews of the candidates, file footage from the pivotal event, a graphic of the dollar figures involved, and a full-screen graphic showing the district as a battleground. Money can be shown “travelling” from different places on the map to your district or state.

More Outsiders

If the special interests are sending money from the outside, what about those outsiders working on the inside? Pollsters, media consultants, direct mail experts, and opposition researchers are all highly-paid campaign workers. Most have never lived in your area, are often strict party loyalists, and are interested in winning your district for the “Party” — or their profit margins — only. Elections can become little more than battles between two groups of outside consultants.

A quick check of FEC reports will show how much a candidate is using these “outsiders.” A possible story can document how much they are charging to win your hometown and identify others for whom these individuals work. An interesting point can be made if you can show a “professional” working for an opposing issue or party in another state. Furthermore, still photos of these consultants can be superimposed on a map, to show their real hometown.

Hours in the Day

Campaigns are getting more and more expensive and fundraising is taking more and more time. A short piece could be developed using the graphic of a clock to illustrate just how time-consuming fundraising is — this figure could be compared to how much time average citizens spend grocery shopping, commuting, etc.

For example, Chuck Hagel is now the junior Senator from the state of Nebraska. In order to win his seat in 1996, Senator Hagel spent $3,612,338. In terms of the clock, Mr. Hagel needed to raise $412.36 every hour for a year in order to win. Another example is the 1996 race for a House seat from Sacramento, California. In that race, U.S. Representative Vic Fazio spent $2,320,330 to retain his seat, or $264.88 every hour for a year.

These types of examples can be replicated in every district of the country. “Days in the week” and “weeks in the month” can be used as well.

The Board Room versus the Living Room

Throughout American history candidates for political office have talked about involving the “little guy,” the “working stiff,” and the “average Joe” in the electoral process. But according to FEC data, the “average Joe” most candidates want to involve in the process has a large bank account. As the following tables indicate, candidates are relying much more on the “Board Room” than the “Living Room.” At least 80% of the funds these candidates raised were from large donations (greater than $200) or from PAC donations. Based on the high percentages of PAC and large donations, the “little guy” has little opportunity to make an impact.

A package could be developed comparing money raised from the “Board Room” to the little guy’s “Living Room.” The charts below can be compiled for your members of Congress. Shots of “Board Rooms” and “Living Rooms” could be incorporated into the package to show the origins of the funds. Build in footage of the candidate talking about helping the “little guy,” if available.

The Halloween Model

Halloween generally marks the home stretch of the election season. It also provides an opportunity to take a ghoulish look at the big money scaring up support for its own congressional initiatives. Three industries that profit from Halloween are sugar, plastics, and peanuts. A package focused on Halloween offers viewers the opportunity to see how money in politics influences so many aspects of our lives. The piece could involve shots from Halloween segued into scenes of Washington and these industries.

Sugar

Sugar growers have faced attacks on price supports that keep sugar prices artificially high. Efforts to eliminate the supports have repeatedly failed. During the 1996 cycle, sugar growers gave $2.8 million dollars in PAC contributions to federal candidates and parties.

Peanuts

Peanut growers have long enjoyed subsidies from the federal government. But in recent years there have been congressional efforts to curtail these price supports. The peanut lobbyists contend that eliminating the subsidies will not benefit consumers since companies who make candy with peanuts (a Halloween staple) will pass their costs on to the public. In 1996, lobbyists representing peanut growers dumped $473,000 into federal races.

Plastics

Plastics are used in everything from costumes to the fake pumpkins children use to gather their treats. The trick is, the top PAC contributors in the plastics category — companies like Zeneca Inc., Dow Corning, and Premark International — gave nearly $250,000 in the last cycle to federal campaigns.

Halloween is not the only holiday that can be used to illustrate the daily impact of money in politics. Other national holidays lend themselves to thematic treatment as well. For example, New Year’s Eve lends itself to a hard-liquor story; Valentine’s Day is good for looking at the candy and greeting card industries; and Independence Day might offer a chance to do a piece on the flag and fireworks industries. Easter, Mother’s and Father’s Day, and Christmas could be examined as well.

Similarly, everyday scenes can be broken down and detailed. For instance, a housing development under construction could lead into a story about special interest money from labor, the construction industry, and mortgage bankers.

How is the Money Spent?

From Student Body to the White House

In a race for Student Council President, candidates’ spending is generally limited. Schools interviewed responded that, on average, student candidates are limited to placing 20 posters on campus. Taking into account markers and poster board, the spending limit is about $30.

Compare that number to the $30,000 — $50,000 it costs to run for a seat in a state house. The numbers increase to $500,000 — $1,500,000 when running for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives.

A run for the White House can cost (including matching funds) upwards of $100,000,000. In 1998, a student politician with aspirations for higher office better start saving now.

This piece can be broadcast in package form — using shots from all types of campaigns (from student to presidential). Interviews with student candidates could add a humorous tone, demonstrating the gap between student politics and high-money national campaigns. The story could include a voice-over with a graphic that shows the dramatic increase in money demands from student body elections to presidential elections. Another way to tell the story would be to compare the campaigns of two “candidates” from the same hometown — a student running for Student Council and your member of Congress.

What Could the Cost of a Senate Campaign Buy?

When all the TV ads have been bought and all the direct mail has been delivered, what would a campaign buy in the real world? As Senate campaign price tags skyrocket well into the multi-millions, it is interesting to note how an average family, community, or state would have been able to spend that money.

In 1996, Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone (D-MN) squared off in a rematch against the man he unseated in 1990, former Senator Rudy Boshwitz (R-MN). Both candidates spent a total of $11,345,217. How far might that $11 million have gone in the real world?

According to the Community Nutrition Institute, a family of four spends $4,264 on groceries each year. The $11,345,217 spent on the Minnesota Senate seat could have fed 2,660 families for an entire year.

According to the National Education Association, the average teacher’s salary in Minnesota is $36,937. The money spent on the Senate race could have employed an additional 307 teachers in the state.

This package compares shots from the campaign trail to shots in an average family’s household (a candidate shooting a TV commercial or sending thousands of pieces of direct mail vs. a family eating dinner). Comparisons can be incorporated with chyrons and other full-screen graphics. Other comparisons could include the number of blood pressure screenings that could be given, the number of cops that could be hired, etc.

What Does Campaign Money Actually Buy?

Examining candidate disclosure forms sometimes produces surprising findings. Campaign cash often buys gifts, flowers, entertainment tickets, and other items not normally considered “political.” Expenditures after the elections can be pretty interesting as well, such as gifts to constituents, grants to local organizations, or contributions to other campaign war chests. Thorough tracking of a candidate’s expenses can produce interesting tidbits that can be translated into 30- or 60-second pieces that illustrate one of the little-known facets of campaign spending.

Who Benefits?

What You Get — What They Get

This particular package could be renamed “What they get and what else they get.” Following are several examples of companies, industries, and interest groups making political donations in exchange for what time and again is a substantially lucrative return on their investment. Many contributions connected to policy outcomes are even larger than these.

Auto Makers

What They Got — The nation’s three largest auto makers, Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler, received a pair of tax breaks in the 1997 federal budget agreement benefiting their production of “clean-fuel” vehicles. Ford and Chrysler announced in June, 1997 that they would begin selling cars and light trucks that can run on ethanol or ethanol blends. General Motors already sells electric cars.

The Price Tag — The three companies gave $300,000 in PAC contributions.

What You Got — Environmentalists say the companies will use these new vehicles to circumvent federal fuel-efficiency standards. (source: Center for Responsive Politics) It remains to be seen how this plays out...and what the consumer will finally get.

Health Maintenance Organizations

What They Got — HMOs successfully defeated efforts on Capitol Hill to prohibit managed-care companies from using “gag rules” in consultations with patients.

The Price Tag — HMO PACs gave $69,000.

What You Got — The practice of using “gag rules” continues, restricting the information doctors can provide to patients about treatment options.

Alcohol Industry

What They Got — Last year an alcohol company lifted an internal policy against advertising their whiskey on television. Other televised hard-liquor ads soon followed. Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) and other child advocate groups soon called for an investigation into the practice and its possible impact on the nation.

The Price Tag — Alcohol PACs gave $537,000.

What You Got — To date, there has been no congressional investigation or administration action on the advertisements.

Follow the Green Brick Road

Following the “Green Brick Road” is another way to highlight the connections between issues, money, and politics. Stations need only follow the “Green Brick Road” to understand why benefits to Caribbean and Central American nations were removed from the North American Free Trade Agreement. A major clothing manufacturer, for example, opposed these benefits, claiming they would cost American workers their jobs. The company left a “Green Brick Road” — $8,500 in PAC contributions and $85,000 in soft money.

Stations could also follow the “Green Brick Road” to understand why President Clinton turned down a request from Texas Governor George W. Bush that would have allowed Texas to hire a private contractor to run the state’s welfare program. A major telecommunications union opposed Governor Bush’s plan because their members currently administer Texas’ assistance programs.

The union and its affiliates gave $173,000 in PAC contributions and $185,000 in soft money.

In both of these cases, it is not difficult for reporters to construct a money trail to show why something happened (or did not happen). The “road” itself can be a pre-produced graphic with signs demonstrating the choices politicians made along the way. For example, one can show that the road veers off in two different directions: the road the politician followed is paved in green, while the other option is paved in regular brick. On-ramps for contributors could be shown, as could “detour” signs for voters. Another visual option is to frame a photo of the politician in the corporate or union logo of his or her “sponsor.”

The Public Impact

The Grocery Store

Most Americans would be surprised to learn of the political wheeling and dealing that goes on before products reach their grocer’s shelves. The following package can be shot almost entirely in a grocery store. A reporter could go up and down store aisles, selecting specific products and tracing the impact of campaign financing on their prices. The piece could also include interviews with company spokespersons and might identify other benefits the company received — relaxed regulations, a tax break, etc. This story shows exactly how vulnerable consumers are to money in politics. Here are some examples:

Starting in the fruit section, an influential owner of a banana company wanted his government’s help in correcting what he saw as unfair trading practices in the global banana market. He persuaded then-U.S. Trade Representative Mickey Kantor to take action. The owner and his family gave $65,000 in individual contributions.

Also in the fruit section are oranges. A large orange grower is a big fan of the Agriculture Department’s Market Access Program. Through this program, the company received approximately $67 million between 1986 and 1992 to market its products overseas. The program, however, is under constant scrutiny as critics claim it’s “corporate welfare.” This program has survived numerous trips to the congressional chopping block as the orange grower has given $215,800 in political contributions.

A Family Budget

How could a political campaign survive on an average family budget? On a budget of $48,900 (the median annual income for a family in Minnesota), a candidate could buy no TV advertising time, limited radio time (advertising rates vary from market to market), a few buttons and stickers, virtually no direct mail, and no paid campaign staff. In short, a candidate running for federal office in 1998 on a budget of $48,900 would probably lose.

This story could be told quite effectively using a full screen graphic listing all of the usual campaign expenditures (TV time, direct mail, posters, etc.) and either a “check mark” or an “X” indicating whether the candidate could afford it. Another graphic could be a pie chart, showing how the money could be spent.

How well could a family do on an average campaign budget? Very well, thank you. Imagine an annual family budget of $11,345,217 (the cost of the Minnesota Senate race)!

What would you do for a $5,000 contribution?

This story is relatively easy to produce and involves either a 1-900 number or man/woman-on-the-street poll. You can either ask, “What would you do for a $5,000 contribution?” or ask the question and offer a list of possible answers (would you turn your back on a friend, would you make a work-related decision which may not be in your company’s best interest, etc.). The question goes right to the heart of the credibility gap in today’s politics.

Straight Election Stories

Civics Class

What are we teaching our kids about our electoral system? Clearly, we are not teaching them to raise money day and night, or to exchange campaign donations for “favors.” If mentioned at all, money’s role in politics is glossed over.

An interesting story would be to compare the textbooks used to educate students in your community. Stations could intersperse passages from a textbook with videos from political fundraisers, lobbyist meetings, and campaign events. Tell the viewer that according to the textbook used in our schools, it is as if none of these activities take place.

This piece will provide an interesting comparison — what we are teaching versus what we are doing. It also begs the question “...are these books adequately reflecting the true nature of money in politics?” The disparity between what we are teaching our children and what we are doing may astonish viewers and listeners.

Eight Weeks Before the Election

There are some noteworthy days falling about two months before election day that offer thematic hooks to explore the impact of special interests on electoral politics. These packages could use video from the holiday/event, graphics showing political contributions, and interviews with experts on the political process.

Labor Day is the day to focus on unions; October 1, the beginning of the fiscal year, is an appropriate time to look at corporate contributions. The first day of autumn brings to mind utility costs; this might be a good day to explore the clothing industries too.

Challenges to Candidates

While Federal Election Commission filings are available and a matter of public record, they are usually not at the fingertips of viewers. TV and radio stations can provide this information directly to viewers in the form of a challenge to candidates: provide us with understandable summaries of money raised and from whom, as well as money spent and on what. These challenges can be issued weekly in the short period before Election Day. The information you would be requesting is a matter of public record and any hesitation by a candidate to comply with the request could be reported as indifference to the public interest.

Web Site — Tracking Expenditures and Fundraising

Campaign financing issues have become important to voters. Posting Federal Election Commission information on your candidates’ contributions and disbursements offers telling details about their races and provides a valuable service to voters. For example, on the issue of abortion, knowing which interest group (whether it is the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League or the National Right to Life Committee) is supporting a candidate financially tells a great deal about his/her position on the issue.

Election Tidbit of the Day

Provide your viewers and listeners with an election “Tidbit of the Day.” For example, “Did you know that today is the deadline for candidates to file their Federal Election Commission reports?” lets your audience know that information on a particular campaign’s finances will be available. Stations can post the candidates’ schedules, alert viewers to when a candidate begins raising money, or even how much interest a candidate is earning on his or her war chest. This can be done as a brief reader, providing an introduction to a larger political story or serving as the close for newscasts in the weeks leading up to Election Day.

Conclusion

The debate about the role of money in politics will be a contentious one in the coming years. But what does it mean in the real world? These story ideas are designed to allow your viewers and listeners the opportunity to see that campaign finance issues do impact them. They may not take food from their table, but they can make it more expensive. They may not dump pollutants into the air, but they may make it more difficult to clean them up.

Heading into an election year, one will find tremendous opportunities to cover the candidates...their public events, debates, and town meetings. Stories about money in politics are an important part of this coverage. We encourage your station to consider the suggestions made in this guide and use them to develop your own models for campaign finance stories. The public has an enormous stake in this issue; if it can be presented in distinctive ways, stations can help their audiences understand and relate to an issue that deeply affects us all.

Eric Hauser is founder and President of The Hauser Group. He can be contacted at 1782 Columbia Road, NW, Suite 200, Washington, DC 20009; Phone: 202-518-8047; Fax: 202-518-8048; E-mail: eric@thgweb.com

top of page • back to Introduction