Burden of TV Election Ads Exaggerated, Study Finds : Politics: Media costs are often cited for bloated war chests. But they appear to be far lower than estimated.

For years, television advertising has been blamed for driving up the cost of political campaigns--particularly for members of the Senate, who believe they must spend millions of dollars to be reelected.

Now there is strong evidence that television is not the culprit.

A Times computer-assisted study of 1990 campaign spending found that slightly more than one-third of the nearly $200 million that Senate candidates spent during the last election was used to pay for advertising and media consultants--far less than most experts have estimated.

At the same time, House candidates spent an average of only one-fourth of their money on advertising of all sorts. Unlike Senate candidates, most House candidates do not run statewide, and many of them use virtually no television advertising at all.

These findings not only run counter to the conventional wisdom, but they also suggest that legislation designed to provide candidates with free or cut-rate television advertising would do less than expected to lower the overall cost of political campaigns.

While advertising costs do represent the biggest single expenditure for the average Senate campaign, there are other expenditures that clearly rival it:

Twenty-four percent of the money spent in the last Senate elections went for fund-raising expenses and 25% was eaten up by the cost of hiring staff members and operating what amounts to a permanent campaign organization for six years.

The Times’ findings tend to support the view of critics of the campaign finance system, who contend that the cost of elections is not growing because of any single expenditure but instead because special interests are willing to supply candidates with more and more money.

“It is the availability of the money that is driving the system,” said Fred Wertheimer, president of Common Cause, a citizens’ lobby that has been urging reform.

Until now, experts have estimated that Senate incumbents were spending anywhere from 50% to 75% of their campaign funds on TV advertising. In fact, it has become dogma among many political consultants that no successful Senate candidate ever spends less than 50% on TV.

But The Times’ study found that even in close races, where the winner received 55% or less of the vote, the average spending on media--television, radio, newspapers and billboards--did not exceed 36% of the costs.

In fact, not one Senate candidate spent as much as 75% of his campaign war chest on media. And only two candidates--Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Democrat Harvey Gantt, who unsuccessfully challenged Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.)--spent as much as 60% for advertising.

Eight others spent as much as 50%.

The results of The Times’ survey of Senate spending on television advertising stunned most political experts.

“If you had asked me how much was spent on media, I would have guessed 75%,” said media consultant Frank Greer. “I’m surprised by that,” added Sen. John C. Danforth (R-Mo.), a leading advocate for reform of political advertising. “It is certainly not the conventional wisdom.”

But Herbert A. Alexander, a political scientist at USC, says he has long suspected that politicians were exaggerating the impact of television costs. “They point to television costs as the culprit, but I’ve always thought the amounts they spent on television were overrated, even in statewide races,” Alexander said.

One factor that could have some impact in The Times’ survey is that there were no Senate contests last year in California and New York--two states where statewide candidates are believed to depend most heavily on television advertising.

Nevertheless, there was no shortage of well-financed races in big states where campaign advertising is expensive--such as Texas, Michigan, New Jersey and Illinois.

In addition, while television rates for political advertising declined in some markets last September for the first time in years--the result of pressure on stations from the Federal Communications Commission--the evidence suggests that Senate candidates simply used the savings to buy more television time.

The total amount spent by last year’s Senate incumbents climbed by 18% from 1984, when these same 33 seats were last up for grabs. Spending rose even though four of the senators who stood for reelection last year had virtually no opposition.

The most expensive race in the 1990 congressional elections was the ideological matchup in North Carolina between conservative Helms and liberal Gantt, who together spent a total of $26.4 million. Sen. Paul Simon (D-Ill.) and his unsuccessful challenger, former Rep. Lynn Martin (R-Ill.), spent nearly $14 million in another hotly contested race.

But the costliest races were not always the closest ones. In Texas, Republican Sen. Phil Gramm spent nearly $12.5 million to defeat his opponent, Hugh Parmer, who was never viewed as a serious contender. Parmer spent $1.8 million.

Even though television costs were not as big as most experts would have expected, candidates for Congress spent very large sums for political advertising. Helms spent more than $5 million; Gantt, $4.7 million; Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), $3.9 million; Sen. Bill Bradley (D-N.J.), $3.3 million; McConnell, $3.2 million; Jim Rappaport, unsuccessful challenger to Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), $3.2 million, and Gramm, more than $3 million.

The Helms race demonstrates vividly why advertising costs are not a higher percentage of the total amount spent by last year’s candidates. Even though Helms invested $5 million on media, that amounted to only 27% of his total campaign spending. He also spent $10.9 million--or 59% of his total outlays--on direct mail and fund raising.

Like Helms, three other big spenders in the 1990 Senate race--Simon, Bradley and Gramm--devoted less than 30% of their funds to advertising.

In House races, where overall campaign spending grew to $232 million in 1990, the most expensive races occurred in New Jersey, Washington state and Georgia.

In New Jersey, Republican Dick Zimmer defeated Democrat Marguerite Chandler in a race for an open seat that cost the two more than $2.6 million. In Washington state, Rep. Jolene Unsoeld (D-Wash.) and her unsuccessful Republican opponent, Bob Williams, together spent $2.1 million. And in Georgia, House Assistant Minority Leader Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and his Democratic opponent, David Worley, together spent nearly $2 million.

Yet none of these House candidates spent more than 36% of their money on advertising. Unsoeld was the leader in media spending, at $469,484. Zimmer spent $435,401; Chandler, $380,749, and Gingrich, $289,803.

The House candidates who spent the most on advertising were two challengers who lost--North Carolina Republican John Carrington and Florida Republican Reid Hughes. Carrington spent $643,955, or 86% of his money on advertising; Hughes spent $653,078, or 59%, on advertising.

In the House, many candidates use little or no television advertising--particularly in large metropolitan areas where most viewers live in other nearby congressional districts. In Los Angeles, for example, Democratic Reps. Henry A. Waxman, Edward R. Roybal, Howard L. Berman and Mel Levine all spent only a fraction of 1% on political advertising.

But in the Senate, even candidates who have no opposition use broadcast advertising. Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), for example, spent $238,579, even though he had no Democratic opponent.

There are currently several bills pending in the Senate that would provide either free or cut-rate television advertising for political candidates. Proponents of these bills argue that they would eliminate one of the disadvantages that challengers have in running against incumbents by giving both candidates equal access to television.

The Times’ survey clearly documented the disadvantage that Senate challengers face when it comes to buying television advertising. Although Gantt, the challenger, spent nearly as much as Helms, he was a rare exception.

Simon of Illinois outspent his challenger, Martin, for advertising by nearly two to one. Levin of Michigan bought more than four times more advertising than his opponent, then-Rep. Bill Schuette. Bradley of New Jersey barely defeated his challenger, Christine Todd Whitman, even though he spent $3.2 million on advertising, compared to her $226,452.

Only in rare cases does a candidate win by spending less on television. Democrat Paul Wellstone (D-Minn.) scored the upset of the year by defeating Republican Sen. Rudy Boschwitz, who outspent him on advertising by more than 100%.

Another objective behind the bills to lower television costs is to bring down the overall costs of campaigning so Senate members will not have to raise millions of dollars to be reelected. The Times’ survey shows that the savings would be less than expected.

Critics of these proposals, led by the National Assn. of Broadcasters, argue that the cost of political campaigns probably will not decline if candidates are provided with free advertising.

“Candidates will continue to raise as much money as they can and spend as much as they need to win,” Michael J. Conly, a senior vice president of Hartke-Hanks Communications, told the Senate Rules Committee recently. “It is entirely likely that any savings from broadcast expenses will easily be spent in other ways.”

Even though television advertising rates declined last year, media consultants say they were buying more television air time to compensate for the declining number of viewers watching each channel.

“What this (lower rates) means is that we can do more television or do more effective television,” said Greg Stevens, who does political advertising for media consultant Roger Ailes. “It means that candidates will get more bang for their buck.”

Danforth acknowledges that legislation lowering television costs would not have as big an impact as he had hoped if--as The Times’ survey shows--Senate candidates are currently spending only 36% on advertising. He also acknowledges that candidates might use the savings to purchase more ads.

But he insists that many Senate candidates already virtually saturate their local television markets with advertising and that there is little opportunity for them to spend more. Furthermore, he said, “any reduction in the cost of campaigning is an advantage. Thirty-five percent of a Senate campaign in the state of Missouri is a whale of a lot of dough.”

Researchers Keating Holland, Murrielle Gamache and Stephanie Grace contributed to this story.

METHODS FOR TIMES’ SURVEY

The Times’ study is the most comprehensive study of campaign spending ever undertaken.

These findings are based on a computer analysis of almost 450,000 separate expenditures reported to the Federal Election Commission by 872 candidates who ran for House and Senate seats last November.

In cases where the reports were vague, television advertising expenditures were verified by contacting representatives of the campaign. Only the campaign of Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) declined to answer any questions about the documents he filed with the FEC.

The only previous survey of television costs based on FEC records was funded by the National Assn. of Broadcasters. Although it was conducted by an independent research firm, political professionals viewed it as part of an effort by the television industry to minimize the impact of broadcast costs in political campaigns.

The broadcasters’ study found that Senate candidates spent 34% of their funds to buy television and radio time in 1986 and 41% in 1988, while House candidates devoted nearly 16% for this purpose in 1986 and 19% in 1988.

Unlike The Times’ survey, the National Assn. of Broadcasters study did not include money paid to media consultants, which is an integral part of television advertising. But by including the cost of media consultants, The Times’ survey is surely overstating the cost of television since most consultants are involved in designing the campaign strategy as well as producing and placing commercials on radio and television stations.

THE CAMPAIGN DOLLAR CAMPAIGN EXPENSES: U.S. SENATE Advertising: 35% Overhead: 25% Fund Raising / Direct Mail: 24% Voter Activity: 7% General Consultants / Polls: 5% Loans / Refunds: 2% Donations: 1% Unitemized: 1% CAMPAIGN EXPENSES: U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Advertising: 25% Overhead: 27% Fund Raising / Direct Mail: 16% Voter Activity: 13% General Consultants / Polls: 8% Loans / Refunds: 3% Donations: 5% Unitemized: 3% * Average percent of campaign expenses for U.S (House/Senate) candidates

TOP SPENDERS FOR CAMPAIGN ADVERTISING

Amount % of Total Won/ Spent Spending Lost SENATE Jesse A. Helms (R-N.C.) Incumbent $5,026,771 27 W Harvey B. Gantt (D-N.C.) Challenger $4,671,427 60 L Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) Incumbent $3,904,224 55 W Bill Bradley (D-N.J.) Incumbent $3,251,420 26 W Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) Incumbent $3,182,726 60 W James W. Rappaport (R-Mass.) Challenger $3,154,978 59 L Phil Gramm (R-Tex.) Incumbent $3,065,091 25 W J. Bennett Johnston (D-La.) Incumbent $2,784,858 55 W Paul Simon (D-Ill.) Incumbent $2,334,067 27 W Howell T. Heflin (D-Ala.) Incumbent $2,024,819 59 W HOUSE Reid Hughes (D-Fla.) Challenger $653,078 59 L John H. Carrington (R-N.C.) Challenger $643,955 86 L David E. Bonior (D-Mich.) Incumbent $566,496 48 W Patsy T. Mink (D-Hawaii) Open Seat $502,250 79 W James M. Ramstad (R-Minn.) Open Seat $474,381 45 W Jolene Unsoeld (D-Wash.) Incumbent $469,484 36 W Charles Luken (D-Ohio) Open Seat $463,877 71 W Wayne Owens (D-Utah) Incumbent $458,141 42 W Philip R. Sharp (D-Ind.) Incumbent $457,114 59 W John W. Buechner (R-Mo.) Incumbent $444,237 66 L

% of Vote SENATE Jesse A. Helms (R-N.C.) 53 Harvey B. Gantt (D-N.C.) 47 Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) 58 Bill Bradley (D-N.J.) 50 Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) 52 James W. Rappaport (R-Mass.) 43 Phil Gramm (R-Tex.) 60 J. Bennett Johnston (D-La.) 54 Paul Simon (D-Ill.) 65 Howell T. Heflin (D-Ala.) 61 HOUSE Reid Hughes (D-Fla.) 44 John H. Carrington (R-N.C.) 42 David E. Bonior (D-Mich.) 65 Patsy T. Mink (D-Hawaii) 66 James M. Ramstad (R-Minn.) 67 Jolene Unsoeld (D-Wash.) 54 Charles Luken (D-Ohio) 51 Wayne Owens (D-Utah) 58 Philip R. Sharp (D-Ind.) 59 John W. Buechner (R-Mo.) 50