COLORADO — Back-to-back disasters—massive wildfires, followed by Friday morning’s horrific movie-theater massacre outside of Denver—have rocked newsrooms here, including that of the state’s flagship newspaper, the Denver Post.
The Post has done a laudable job (on multiple platforms) of covering both catastrophic events and the ensuing visits by President Obama, while also keeping an eye on the campaign trail—and, specifically, the money trail.
On July 16, with most of the major wildfires under control and Friday’s tragedy still several days off, the Post’s Kurtis Lee filed a story on second-quarter fundraising numbers for candidates in Colorado’s 3rd, 6th and 7th Congressional Districts, where two Republican incumbents and a Democratic incumbent sit on more than $1 million in campaign cash, yet to be matched by their challengers. Two days later, jumping off of the latest fundraising numbers, Lee and Sara Burnett wrote a solid overview of those three Congressional races in Colorado, considered to be among the most competitive in the nation.
Lee and Burnett explained why Democrats, who need a net gain of 25 seats to win back the majority in the 435-member House, believe Colorado is key:
Having three districts the parties consider in play makes Colorado—with its unusually high number of unaffiliated voters—one of the rare states that will be a battleground in both the presidential race and in deciding which party controls the House.
Also in the piece? A head’s up, of sorts, for Coloradans who plan to watch TV after Labor Day (and for political reporters in this state):
Already, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee have reserved a combined $4 million in TV advertising space for the period starting after Labor Day .That doesn’t include buys from the candidates or other outside groups such as PACs.The money-in-politics story, in other words, is about to get bigger and more complicated here as the campaigns enter their final months (and voters leave summer behind and begin to tune in). In anticipation of that, I offer below some modest suggestions for how reporters might write more informative campaign finance stories while becoming familiar with some of the follow-the-money resources I’ve written about before, and which they might want to call on this fall. There are stories (and seeds for future stories) to be mined from these watchdog websites.
• Report regularly not just candidate fundraising totals—which show who is “winning” and by how much, as the Post’s Lee did in the first story referenced above—but also who’s funding each major candidate, so voters get some sense of who might have a candidate’s ear. Who are a given candidate’s biggest donors? Which industries support him most heavily? Whose interests is he most attuned to? This data is, of course, available in Federal Election Commission filings but also—and, easier on the eyes—at OpenSecrets (for example, here are donors to Rep. Jared Polis, D-CO).
Another example: here is data on donors to the Colorado Congressional candidate who has raised the most money to date, incumbent Republican Mike Coffman. His $2.4 million war chest is bolstered most by contributions from retirees ($156,510), followed by Republican leadership PACs ($149,000), the oil and gas industry ($105,000), real estate interests ($86,242), and lawyers and law firms ($64,100).
Metro areas that have contributed most heavily to Coffman include Denver, $797,511; Boulder-Longmont, $29,334; Washington DC, MD, VA and WV, $20,805; Greeley, $18,400; and Los Angeles-Long Beach, $16,500.
In addition to looking at what a candidate takes in (“itemized receipts”), take a look, too, at where the money is spent (“itemized disbursements”).