Dahlkemper Aided by Democratic Committee in Win over English
DAHLKEMPER FEC
WSEE-35
Lindsay Perna
Boston University Washington News Service
March 3, 2009
WASHINGTON — The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spent more on behalf of Kathy Dahlkemper in her successful race for Pennsylvania’s 3rd Congressional District seat than the candidate’s campaign raised, according to year-end reports filed with the Federal Election Commission.
By making massive expenditures in the late stages of the campaign, the Democratic committee helped Dahlkemper defeat Republican incumbent Philip English, who raised twice as much money as his Democratic opponent.
The committee independently spent $1,567,016 for a seat that Republicans held for 32 years, according to reports filed with the election commission. The committee expenditures are separate from the candidate’s campaign and include money spent in support of the candidate and money spent against the opponent. The Democratic committee spent $783,509 for Dahlkemper and $783,507 against English.
“Having support from the party was very helpful, just in letting me compete on a level playing field,” Dahlkemper said of the expenditure made outside of her campaign.
Dahlkemper raised only $1,313,239 to English’s $2,659,971, according to the year-end campaign reports filed with the election commission.
“I was going up against a 14-year incumbent who had resources well beyond what I had to start with and certainly was able to raise,” the congresswoman said in her House office. “The power of the incumbency is huge.”
Democratic committee ads “were able to take on the opposition while allowing us to stay focused on the positive message of change and vision for the district,” said Tina Mengine, Dahlkemper’s chief of staff and former campaign manager.
“Because we have no input into these ads nor do we know about them in advance, each ad that ran was a surprise and usually very welcome,” she said.
The National Republican Congressional Committee spent $776,828 on the race, according to election commission filings, including $7,659 on behalf of English and $769,169 in opposition to Dahlkemper.
“The fact that Kathy Dahlkemper was one of 30 that we targeted—it was a district and a seat we had our eyes on,” said Paul Lindsay, spokesman for the Republican committee.
Both the Democratic and Republican committees doled out the majority of their funds in October of 2008.
Realizing that English had serious competition after the Dahlkemper campaign released a poll in July of 2008 showing her leading, the Republican committee started saturating the Erie media market. At the same time, the Democratic committee began spending money in the district as well.
“I got their attention,” Dahlkemper said, proving that she was worth the extra Democratic effort.
The party committees were not the only big independent players in Dahlkemper’s win. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) political action committee independently spent $497,875 against English on Oct. 15—the only other significant independent expenditure besides the Democratic committee’s, according to the year-end filings with the election commission.
This labor organization’s expenditures in Dahlkemper’s race were one of only five House campaigns it spent money on, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington-based group that tracks money in politics.
“We felt the need to counter that with the independent expenditure on our part,” David A. Bielski, the director of AFSCME in the district and secretary treasurer of the Northwest Pennsylvania Area Labor Federation, said of the Republican committee ads.
“It’s been a strategy of ours for a long time—we don’t want to let all of our tricks out of the bag early on,” he said. “It seemed to have worked.”
Daniel Shea, a political science professor at Allegheny College in Erie, said that there are different strategies on when to direct the cash: giving money early could help propel candidates, but storing it for the end could make a difference in the outcome.
Political action committees and interest groups used to spread their money around, Shea said, but are now spending it on a limited number of races.
“Their efforts now are more effective,” Shea said.
And the party committees increased their total independent expenditures significantly from years before.
The Democratic committee spent 21 percent more in the 2008 elections than it did in the 2006 elections, while the Republican committee spent 77 percent more, according to election commission data.
Dahlkemper, a small-business owner, beat four other more experienced candidates.
“I had connections with people from all over the district—through my life,” she said.
“She is pretty conservative on social issues; voters knew this wasn’t a typical Democrat—that match was a good one,” said Stephen Medvic, a government professor at Franklin and Marshall College in Lancaster, Pa.
Shea attributed Dahlkemper’s win to the fact that the National Republican Congressional Committee’s efforts were spread too thin and too late.
“One catch is that Republicans held their money. Money that the DCCC spent in very end was very necessary to stave off English,” Shea said. “I think Phil English felt his vulnerability early on and was begging for help.”
###
