Advertisement

May 22, 2013

GOP not Giving Up on Maine Senate Race: Daily Disclosure

Snowe's retirement opens seat

Republicans are trying to peel away support from popular former Gov. Angus King, an independent, who is favored to win a U.S. Senate seat made more competitive by the retirement of senior Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe.

Maine Freedom, a new super PAC, spent $137,000 on ads supporting Cynthia Dill, the Democratic candidate. As reported Friday by the Bangor Daily News, the group's treasurer is Michael Adams, general counsel for the Republican Governors Association. The assistant treasurer, Erin Berry, is also a former lawyer for the RGA.

The RGA apparently hopes to split the Democratic vote between King and Dill, thus giving Republican candidate, Charlie Summers, a chance at victory.

The RGA is a so-called 527 organization, a politically active nonprofit, not registered with the Federal Election Commission, whose mission is to elect Republican governors.

Target Enterprises, the group that made the ad buy for Maine Freedom, is a California-based media placement company. The president of the group, Adam Stoll, was senior adviser to the Republican National Committee in 2004 and 2008 and served as the national advertising director for the 1996 presidential committee of former Sen. Bob Dole, R-Kan.

Maine Freedom registered with the FEC as a super PAC on Aug. 16. The only reported campaign spending so far is Friday’s pro-Dill ad, which was not available online at this writing. No donors have yet been disclosed.

In other outside spending news:

  • The nonprofit National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action reported spending $420,000 in the Ohio and Virginia U.S. Senate races, where the group opposes Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, and former Democratic Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine.
  • As part of a $250,000 ad buy, Republican nonprofit Crossroads GPS released “Mountain,” opposing Rep. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., who is running against former Republican Gov. Tommy Thompson.
  • Conservative nonprofit Americans for Prosperity spent $3.6 million on “New Ideas,” which was released Thursday and opposes President Barack Obama.
  • On Friday, Americans for Prosperity released “Washington-Style Reform,” attacking Rep. Joe Donnelly, D-Ind., for supporting the Affordable Care Act.
  • Conservative super PAC National Horizon reported spending $192,000 on ads supporting Republican Wendy Long for U.S. Senate from New York. The litigation lawyer faces incumbent Democrat Sen. Kristen Gillibrand. National Horizon’s latest ad criticizes Gillibrand and the Affordable Care Act.
  • American Future Fund, a conservative nonprofit, spent $548,000 on “Battle Born,” an ad opposing Sen. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., and $183,000 on “Choice,” an ad supporting Republican Rick Berg for U.S. Senate in North Dakota. Both ads were released Aug. 22.
  • The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee spent $189,000 on advertising opposing Rep. Denny Rehberg, R-Mont., who is running for U.S. Senate against incumbent Democratic Sen. Jon Tester.
  • Majority PAC¸ a super PAC supporting Democratic candidates for U.S. Senate, spent $730,000 on ads opposing Rep. Connie Mack, R- Fla. Majority PAC released the ad “Tiger Blood” opposing Mack on Thursday. Mack faces incumbent Sen. Bill Nelson.
  • SEIU COPE, the political action committee of the Service Employees International Union, spent $153,000 opposing Rep. Michael Coffman, R-Colo., and supporting Rep. Joe Miklosi, D-Colo., who face off in the election for U.S. House in Colorado’s 6th district.
  • The super PAC of the AFL-CIO, Workers’ Voice, spent $118,000 on flyers, direct mail and staff support in support of Obama.
Reprinted by Permission © 2013, The Center for Public Integrity®. All Rights Reserved.

About the Author

Rachael is a Master’s journalism student at American University. She completed her bachelor’s degree in Political Science at Reed College in 2010. She has been published in the Portland Mercury, an alternative newsweekly, and several local newspapers and magazines in Laguna Beach, Calif. and Portland, Ore.

202-466-1300

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.