October, 24 2014, 01:15pm EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Seth Hoy, seth.hoy@nyu.edu, 646-292-8369 or Laurie Kinney, lkinney@justiceatstake.org, 202-588-9454
TV Ad Spending in Judicial Races Surpasses $9.1 Million
Political Parties and Outside Groups Continue to Outspend Candidates
WASHINGTON
With less than two weeks to November 4th, political parties, outside groups, and state Supreme Court candidates have spent more than $9.1 million on TV ads this election cycle, including primaries and off cycle elections, according to FCC filings, campaign financial disclosures, and estimates from Kantar Media/CMAG analyzed by the Brennan Center for Justice and Justice at Stake. For just the general election, TV ad spending for state Supreme Court races totals more than $6.1 million.
Political parties and outside groups have dominated TV ad spending this year with nearly 63 percent of the total ad buys since January, according to an analysis of Kantar Media/CMAG data. Michigan leads the nation in TV ad spending with approximately $2.9 million spent to date, according to FCC filings and Kantar Media/CMAG estimates.
"This high level of spending is consistent with the spending we saw in 2010 midterm judicial races," said Alicia Bannon, Counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice. "Special interest groups continue to dump money into state Supreme Court races in an attempt to stack the deck in their favor. Voters should feel like our courts are fair and impartial, not political playgrounds where business interests and lawyers can tilt the scales of justice with their pocketbooks."
"Once again, large sums are being spent to buy up courts," said Executive Director Bert Brandenburg of Justice at Stake, a nonpartisan organization that tracks money and politics in judicial elections. "Dark money and hardball politics are turning judicial campaigns into auctions, and judges are trapped in the middle, pressured to answer to donors and supporters who appear before them in court. Every state that elects judges needs to take steps to keep cash out of the courtroom."
Although TV ad spending will increase dramatically in the remaining days before Election Day, activity in several states stands out:
Last Minute Spending Surge in Illinois Retention Race
A group called "Campaign for 2016" has spent $826,700 this month on a TV ad attacking Illinois Supreme Court Justice Lloyd Karmeier, who is seeking retention for a new 10-year term, according to state disclosure forms. The ad targets Justice Karmeier for overturning multimillion dollar judgments against Philip Morris and State Farm in two high-profile cases, after the companies "push[ed] four million dollars" into Justice Karmeier's 2004 election. Justice Karmeier declined requests for recusal in both cases and disputes the characterization of the companies' involvement in his campaign.
Campaign for 2016 has collected $1.3 million in contributions, all from lawyers and law firms involved in the Philip Morris and State Farm cases, according to according to state campaign disclosures.
Republican Party Spends Big in Michigan
The Michigan Republican Party has spent an estimated $1,761,200 on a TV ad supporting David Viviano, Brian Zahra, and James Robert Redford, according to data from Kantar Media/CMAG. Candidate spending in Michigan's Supreme Court race is also high -- FCC filings show David Viviano, Brian Zahra, and Richard Bernstein have booked 3,078 ads totaling $1,224,697. Together, this spending totals $2,985,897 -- the highest spending documented so far this fall.
Conservative Group Continues to Target State Judicial Races
The Republican State Leadership Committee (RSLC), which announced a "Judicial Fairness Initiative" earlier this year to support conservative judges and candidates, continues spending on targeted state judicial races.
In Montana, the RSLC has booked more than $144,490 in TV ad purchases, according to FCC data, with a criminal justice-themed ad supporting Supreme Court candidate Lawrence VanDyke in his race against incumbent Justice Michael Wheat.
The RSLC has also infused money into a lower court race in Missouri, contributing $100,000 to Cole County circuit judge candidate Brian Stumpe through its Missouri-based PAC. The PAC is reportedly intending to spend an additional $100,000 in support of Stumpe's campaign as well. Cole County contains the state capital and hears many high-profile cases challenging state laws. In a tie-dye themed ad, the RSLC characterizes incumbent Judge Pat Joyce as siding with "radical environmentalists."
In the May 6th North Carolina Supreme Court primary, the RSLC contributed $900,000 to Justice for All NC, a group that spent significant sums on attack ads against Justice Robin Hudson. The RSLC also gave money to the Tennessee Forum during Tennessee's retention elections this summer. The Tennessee Forum aired ads accusing the Tennessee Supreme Court justices up for retention of being "liberal on crime."
Candidate Spending Up in North Carolina
Candidates for four seats on the North Carolina Supreme Court have been the only source of TV spending this fall, responsible for over $1.6 million in TV ad buys, in contrast to an avalanche of TV spending from outside groups in the state's primary. The nine North Carolina judicial candidates have raised more than $2.2 million this cycle, due in part to the elimination of the state's public financing program back in 2013. Since 2008, total candidate fundraising had not surpassed the $200,000 mark in any race.
In the state's May 6th Supreme Court primary, 76 percent of the $1.3 million spent was raised by two groups, Justice for All North Carolina and North Carolina Chamber IE PAC.
TV ads can be viewed on the Brennan Center's Buying Time 2014 page here.
GENERAL ELECTION TV AD SPENDING BY STATE
Totals reflect data from FCC filings, campaign financial disclosures, and estimates from Kantar Media/CMAG.
Illinois
- Group Spending
- Campaign for 2016: $826,700
Ohio
- Candidate Spending
- Judith French and Sharon Kennedy: $223,025
New Mexico
- Group Spending
- Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission: $74,965
Montana
- Group Spending - $314,060
- Republican State Leadership Committee: $144,490
- Montanans for Liberty and Justice: $169,570
- Candidate Spending
- Mike Wheat: $29,260
Michigan
- Candidate Spending - $1,224,697
- Richard Bernstein: $574,280
- Brian Zahra and David Viviano: $650,417
- Party Spending
- Michigan Republican Party: $1,761,200
North Carolina
- Candidate Spending - $1,679,919
- Mark Davis (Court of Appeals candidate) and Sam Ervin: $458,128
- Mark Martin and Eric Levinson: $176,477
- Mark Martin: $182,112
- Michael Robinson and John Bryant (Wake County Court candidate): $133,180
- Michael Robinson: $9,651
- Robert N. Hunter Jr.: $15,375
- Lucy Inman (Court of Appeals candidate) and Robert N. Hunter Jr.: $22,400
- Sam Ervin: $7,525
- Mark Martin and Michael Robinson: $181,961
- Eric Levinson and Michael Robinson: $101,175
- Eric Levinson: $37,500
- Robin Hudson and Sam Ervin: $92,625
- Cheri Beasley and Robin Hudson: $261,810
NOTE: Many ads were booked jointly by two candidates. In some instances, this reflects the candidates' decision to run combined campaign ads together. In other instances, it reflects several TV buys that were made by one ad agency representing multiple candidates.
FCC advertising data are based on publicly available contract files uploaded to the FCC website. Please note that the FCC site is continually updated, and totals currently displayed on the FCC site may have changed since the publication of totals in this release.
Spending estimates from Kantar Media/CMAG are based on captured satellite data in the nation's largest media markets. CMAG's calculations do not reflect ad agency commissions or the costs of producing advertisements, nor do they reflect the cost of ad buys on local cable channels. Cost estimates are revised by Kantar Media/CMAG when it receives updated data, resulting in some fluctuations in the reported ad spending.
Keep reading...Show less
The Brennan Center for Justice is a nonpartisan law and policy institute. We strive to uphold the values of democracy. We stand for equal justice and the rule of law. We work to craft and advance reforms that will make American democracy work, for all.
(646) 292-8310LATEST NEWS
Oxfam Says Russian Use of Chemical Weapons in Ukraine Would Be 'Egregious Violation of International law'
"The increasing erosion of the rule of law is deeply concerning," said an Oxfam campaigns manager.
Jul 07, 2025
Anti-poverty organization Oxfam on Monday expressed grave concern over reports that Russia has been increasingly deploying chemical weapons in Ukraine.
The Associated Press reported late last week that two Dutch intelligence agencies are claiming that Russia has been ramping up its use of chemical weapons in its war against Ukraine. Among the chemical weapons allegedly being deployed by Russia are chloropicrin, a banned poison gas that was used by European powers during World War I, and CS gas, which is typically used as a riot control agent.
Sarah Redd, Oxfam's advocacy and campaigns manager in Ukraine, called reports of banned chemical weapons use deeply troubling and called for a full investigation into the matter.
"Oxfam is appalled at the recent intensification of violence against civilians in Ukraine, especially the reports of Russia's use of chemical weapons, which would be an egregious violation of international law," she said. "The increasing erosion of the rule of law is deeply concerning. Such laws were put in place to prevent humanity from sliding back into a darker chapter of history. Oxfam calls for an immediate and independent international investigation into these allegations and to hold those responsible to account."
Russia is a signatory of the Chemical Weapons Convention, a treaty first drafted and enacted in the 1990s that bars the use of both chloropicrin and CS gas in war. This makes Russia subject to potential investigations carried out by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, although such an investigation can only take place if requested by member states.
Ukraine has claimed that Russia has carried out more than 9,000 chemical weapons attacks ever since it launched its invasion of the country more than three years ago. During the 2024 election campaign, President Donald Trump claimed that he could bring an end to the Ukraine-Russia war within a single day although so far fighting between the two nations has only intensified.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Indefensible': Trump Budget Law Subsidizes Private Jet Owners While Taking Healthcare From Millions
A provision of the budget law that President Donald Trump signed last week will leave taxpayers to "pick up the tab for the private jet industry and billionaire high flyers."
Jul 07, 2025
The Republican budget measure that U.S. President Donald Trump signed into law late last week contains a provision that analysts say will allow private jet owners to write off the full cost of their aircraft in the first year of purchase, a boon to the ultra-rich that comes as millions of people are set to lose healthcare under the same legislation.
FlyUSA, a private aviation provider, gushed in a blog post that with final passage of the unpopular budget reconciliation package, "business jet ownership has never looked more fiscally attractive or more fun to explain to your accountant."
The law, crafted by congressional Republicans and approved with only GOP support, permanently restores a major corporate tax break known as 100% bonus depreciation, which allows businesses to deduct the costs of certain assets in the first year of purchase rather than writing them off over time.
Forbes noted that the bonus depreciation policy "applies to a slew of qualified, physical business expenses which depreciate over time, such as machinery and company cars, but the policy is often associated with big-ticket luxury items, such as private aircraft, and its institution last decade led to a boom in jet sales."
"Trump and congressional Republicans have certainly delivered for the billionaire class."
Chuck Collins, director of the Program on Inequality at the Institute for Policy Studies, called bonus depreciation "a massive tax break for billionaires and centi-millionaires that use the most polluting form of transportation on the planet."
"A corporation purchasing a $50 million private jet could potentially deduct the entire $50 million from their taxes in the year of the purchase, rather than spreading the deduction over many years," Collins wrote. "This amounts to a massive taxpayer subsidy, as ordinary taxpayers pick up the tab for the private jet industry and billionaire high flyers."
"Subsidizing more private jets on a warming planet is reckless and indefensible," he added.
The National Business Aviation Association, a lobbying group for the private aviation industry, celebrated passage of the Republican legislation, specifically welcoming the bonus depreciation policy as "effective for incentivizing aircraft purchase." (The Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy argues that "depreciation tax breaks have never been shown to encourage more capital investment.")
Meanwhile, communities across the United States are bracing for the law's deep cuts to Medicaid and federal nutrition assistance, which are expected to impose damaging strains on state budgets and strip food benefits and health coverage from millions of low-income Americans.
"Trump and congressional Republicans have certainly delivered for the billionaire class," said Robert Weissman, co-president of Public Citizen. "This is certainly one of the cruelest bills in American history, backtracking on the country's painfully slow history of expanding healthcare coverage and, equally remarkably, taking food away from the hungry."
"That's a lot of needless suffering just to make the richest Americans richer," he added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'These Deaths Are on Trump's Hands': Texas Flooding Spotlights Assault on Climate Science
"The Trump regime is gutting scientific research into climate and atmospheric science for political reasons, at the very time we need a much better understanding of it," said one environmentalist. "This is so reckless and dangerous."
Jul 07, 2025
Deadly flooding caused by torrential rain in central Texas late last week called attention to U.S. President Donald Trump's full-scale assault on the climate research and monitoring agencies tasked with studying and predicting such weather catastrophes, as well as his ongoing attacks on disaster preparedness and relief.
Though local National Weather Service (NWS) forecasters did issue warnings in the lead-up to Friday's flooding—which killed at least 82 people, including dozens of children—key roles were reportedly vacant ahead of the downpour, prompting scrutiny of the Trump administration's mass firings and budget cuts, in addition to years of neglect and failures by Republicans at the state level.
Asked whether he believes the federal government should hire back terminated meteorologists in the wake of the Texas flooding, Trump responded in the negative and falsely claimed that "very talented people" at NWS "didn't see" the disaster coming.
"This is an absolute lie," replied meteorologist and climate journalist Eric Holthaus. "Worse, this is the person responsible for making those kids less safe and he's trying to deny the damage he caused."
Holthaus wrote Sunday that Trump's staffing cuts "have particularly hit the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Environmental Modeling Center, which aims to improve the skill of these types of difficult forecasts."
"Though it's unclear to what extent staffing shortages across the NWS complicated the advance notice that local officials had of an impending flooding disaster," he added, "it's clear that this was a complex, compound tragedy of a type that climate warming is making more frequent."
"Republicans have fired meteorologists, cut emergency disaster aid, and given an extra $18 billion to the fossil fuel corporations causing this crisis."
Under the guise of "government efficiency," the Trump administration has taken an axe to staff at federal climate agencies and is trying to go even further with its budget for the coming fiscal year. The Washington Post noted Sunday that "a budget document the Trump administration recently submitted to Congress calls for zeroing out climate research funding for 2026, something officials had hinted at in previous proposals but is now in lawmakers' hands."
"But even just the specter of President Donald Trump's budget proposals has prompted scientists to limit research activities in advance of further cuts," the Post noted. "Trump's efforts to freeze climate research spending and slash the government's scientific workforce have for months prompted warnings of rippling consequences in years ahead. For many climate scientists, the consequences are already here."
Since the start of his second term, Trump has dismissed the hundreds of scientists and experts who were working on the National Climate Assessment, moved to slash NOAA's workforce, and announced a halt to climate disaster tracking, among other changes—all while working to accelerate fossil fuel extraction and use that is supercharging extreme weather events. One NOAA veteran warned that Trump's cuts could drag the agency back to "the technical and proficiency levels we had in the 1950s."
"The Trump regime is gutting scientific research into climate and atmospheric science for political reasons, at the very time we need a much better understanding of it," environmentalist Stephen Barlow wrote on social media on Sunday. "This is so reckless and dangerous, which is why I suggest we call these tragedies Trump events."
Aru Shiney-Ajay, executive director of the Sunrise Movement, said over the weekend that "Republicans have fired meteorologists, cut emergency disaster aid, and given an extra $18 billion to the fossil fuel corporations causing this crisis."
"These deaths are on Trump's hands," she added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular