Sometimes, the flow of knowledge is even more direct. Dave Levinthal, who formerly worked for Opensecrets.org, is now part of a team of five reporters who cover campaign finance, political influence, and lobbying full-time for Politico. Levinthal notes that his current employer is just one of the news outlets that has redoubled its efforts to cover the money story.
“That speaks to the amount of interest news organizations have because so many people are interested in the issues and are concerned about the issues or want to make sense of the issues,” he said. “What we’re seeing is new and often very innovative—coming from some of the usual suspects, the legacy media organizations, but also a lot of new ones like Politico, which started five years ago.”
For all the journalistic activity at specialty sites and major publications, though, the coverage of political money often seems to fall short at smaller media outlets, such as regional newspapers. It’s not that the story goes uncovered—every respectable paper reports on latest fundraising numbers after the filing deadlines pass, and attempts periodic big-deal investigations. Even at mid-sized publications, there are probably more column inches (or screen pixels) devoted to campaign finance than there once were.
But the coverage often misses simple opportunities to explore connections between policies and political giving, to present fund-raising numbers in non-horse race terms, or to point readers on the way to exploring this information themselves. As a result, it doesn’t rise to the standard this story demands.
Consider a few items from The Denver Post, my hometown paper and former employer. In February, the Post reported on U.S. Rep. Douglas Lamborn’s votes on two separate energy bills. One of the measures, which Lamborn sponsored, called for expanding oil-shale exploration on federal land in Colorado; that bill was blasted by both environmentalists and many government officials in the western half of the state. The other bill called for extending a wind energy tax credit, and Lamborn was the lone “no” vote among Colorado’s nine-person delegation.
With a few clicks at Opensecrets.org, a reporter would have found that oil and gas
has been the top industry donor to Lamborn’s campaign committee, giving him $21,750 so far. It’s not a huge sum, and it doesn’t mean the industry is “buying” Lamborn’s vote. (It makes more sense to see the industry donors as trying to help a friendly politician keep his seat.) It’s also not exactly “news.” But it is a bit of context that sheds light on how laws are shaped—and how the people shaping the laws are supported.
Or consider this Feb. 1 post about fundraising by candidates for Congress. It’s good to have this information promptly reported when the data becomes available. But the frame here is strictly horse-race: how much a candidate raised, how much his or her opponent raised, how much cash the campaign has on hand. There’s no sense of where the money is coming from, and no attempt to point readers to where that information might be found.
Adding in these details wouldn’t have made the blog post a deep investigative dive, and wouldn’t have eliminated the need for long-term pieces (which the Post does take on). But it would have been a small step toward improving readers’ understanding of the routine operation of money in politics—and small steps, taken often enough, can carry you a long way.
There are also self-interested reasons for local newspapers (and TV stations) to shift their coverage in this direction. The Internet has made it possible for niche publications like Politico to reach a national audience, and for data-miners and watchdogs to reach readers directly. In the competition for a deeply-engaged political audience, few regional outlets can match the obsessive focus of those specialty sources.
What even strapped regional publications might do as a matter of course, though, is take advantage of the campaign finance work the specialty sites have already done, and distill the bits of information that are most pertinent to their readers—while also showing readers how they can seek out the data themselves. That approach would mark a bid for relevance among politics junkies, while also helping to open doors for more casual readers.
So what, exactly, might that look like? I’ll offer some specific suggestions in my next post.
Ends today: If you'd like to help CJR and win a chance at one of
10 free print subscriptions, take a brief survey for us here.