In early summer of 1995, the Clinton Committee spent $2.4 million of its campaign committee funds to run a series of ads relating to the ban on assault weapons in over twenty major television markets "in key electoral states", according to Bob Woodward's book, The Choice (1). This candidate ad campaign, unusal in its timing some eighteen months before the election, was designed by Clinton's chief media consultant Rober Squier (2) and his then-chief political strategist Richard Morris. Other Clinton aides strongly opposed spending so much of the Clinton Committee's campaign money so long before the election (3)
According to an August 28, 1995 report by J. Farrell, "Clinton campaign mulls private funding" published in The Boston Globe, this internal division led to a debate during the summer of 1995 about whether to turn down public financing during the primary elections "in order to avoid federal spending limits". According to the report :
Worried about Clinton's battered popularity, his political advisers are tempted to use the fund-raising powers of the presidency to bankroll an early television advertising campaign in key states. ...Some Clinton aides, therefore, consider the $36 million limit on primary spending and the state-by-state caps as obstacles to their reelection plans. ...
[T]he Clinton-Gore campaign already has spent more than $2 million on television ads and is contemplating another multimillion-dollar advertising blitz for the fall.
Even though the president so far faces no Democratic opponent, his advisers are planning expensive media campaigns to boost Clinton's standing in key general election battleground states during next year's primary season.
If the Clinton campaign accepts federal funds, it would have to honor the spending caps in essential states.
In this debate, according to A. Devroy in "Clinton Rejects Aides' Proposal to Refuse U.S. Matching Funds," published in the September 18, 1995 Washington Post, some Clinton political advisers considered the spending limits that condition the receipt of public funds as imposing an unacceptable constraint on the reelection campaign:
[S]ome Clinton political advisers argued that as an incumbent president, he could raise all the money he needed and then would be able to spend it however he wanted. The proposal was part of a larger strategy that suggested Clinton could spend millions on television advertising in late winter and spring of 1996. ...
In this connection, Clinton political strategist Richard Morris reportedly advocated rejecting the federal funds and spending limits:
Morris wanted to ensure that Clinton was in a position to maximize saturation television advertising in the coming primary season. ...The lawyers said that if Clinton rejected the federal matching funds, he would not have to abide by any fund-raising limits during the primary period. The possibilities would be limitless -- potentially tens of millions of dollars more to spend on television advertising, perhaps even $50 to $60 million or more for an unparalleled media blitz. Morris decided that was the solution (4).
The Clinton Committee's chief political strategist, Morris, and its chief media strategist, Squier, in August 1995 were advocating an unusually early TV ad campaign to emphasize President Clinton's protection of Medicare in order to bolster Clinton's popularity as they headed into the election year (5). Other campaign officials who advocated accepting public funds and spending limits were opposed to "using our precious money" for this ad campaign since they were going to be subject to "an absolute legal ceiling" as part of accepting public funds (6).
In the end, published reports show, the Clinton camapign and its agents designed a scheme to try to have it both ways -- to receive taxpayer funds and agree to a spending limit, and also to run a multimillion-dollar Clinton ad campaign through the DNC without counting any of these expenditures against the spending limit the campaign had agreed to.
Running campaign ads through the DNC was, in their view, "the compromise that allowed the President to have television air time without eating into his own re-election treasury" (7). Under the scheme designed by the Clinton campaign, the ads would, in their view, "allow the President to start defining himself for the 1996 re-election campaign without using up his own campaign funds or counting the costs against the strict spending limits that Presidential candidates face" (8).
In fact, however, the ad campaign run through the DNC was plainly an ad campaign of the Clinton Committee and its agents, and the expenditures for the ad campaign of at least $34 million were required to be counted against the Clinton Committee's overall spending limit.
The Clinton campaign and its agents designed and produced the ads, determined the placement of the ads and made the media buys, and raised money to pay for the ad campaign run through the DNC. This included the campaign's chief media strategist, Robert Squier, and campaign's chief political strategist, Richard Morris. It also reportedly included the President himself:
At weekly evening meetings in the White House, Clinton went through [the ads], offered suggestions and even edited some of the scripts. He directed the process, trying out what he wanted to say, what might work, how he felt about it, and what it meant. (9)
The ad campaign run through the DNC was managed by Robert Squier, (10) the head of Squier Knapp Ochs and its division, the November 5 Group. At the same time, Squier was also serving as President Clinton's chief media advisor and directing the ad campaign for the Clinton-Gore Committee. (11) Mediaweek noted, "The Democratic planning is led by Bob Squier of the Washington firm Squier Knapp Ochs. The firm has a tight hold on the planning and buying process, creating ads and acting as chief media consultants to the Clinton-Gore campaign and Democratic National Committee." (12) National Journal reported that Squier's "latest ad for the President's re-election effort emphasizes many of the same points found in the ads that he produced for the DNC." (13)
As National Journal noted with reference to both the Clinton and Dole campaign media consultants:
[T]he fact that the media consultants who are crafting the commercials for the national parties are also the same strategists producing ads for the Clinton and Dole campaigns belies the notion that the ads are intended to benefit the party as a whole. (14)
According to published reports, the Clinton campaign's chief political strategist, Richard Morris, was heavily involved with Squier in the design and planning of the ads. They jointly "tested" various 30-second ad scripts and jointly prepared the first ad run in August 1995. (15)
According to published reports, President Clinton "directed a special fundraising effort" (16) for the DNC beginning in the summer of 1995 to raise money to pay for the ad campaign:
McAuliffe [the President's chief fundraiser] knew that if the president was behind a special fundraising drive by the party, the money would be raised. Clinton did not make the fundraising calls himself, but Vice President Gore made about fifty personal calls, and the party's chairman and entire fundraising apparatus were turned loose. Because the money supposedly would be for the party, there were no limits on contributions -- the so-called soft money loophole in the law allowing contributions for general operations. A number of large contributions in the $100,000 range were received.Of course the distinction between Clinton-Gore money and Democratic Party money existed only in the minds of the bookkeeprs and legal fine-print readers. It was all being raised and spent by the same people -- Clinton, Gore, Morris and the campaign apparatus. (17)
In this effort, the DNC reportedly raised over $10 million in soft money and borrowed additional funds. (18) By the end of 1995, $18 million dollars reportedly had been spent to fund an advertising campaign sponsored by the DNC. (19)
During the first six months of 1996, under President Clinton's leadership and with his active involvement, the DNC raised $34.9 million in "soft money" contributions. A significant portion of this money was used to finance the Clinton ad campaign run through the DNC, which aired during this period. (20)
The Clinton ad campaign run through the DNC during the period from July 1, 1995 to June 30, 1996 spent $27 million in the top twelve states where the most expenditures were made on the ad campaign, including $18 million in "soft money" and $9 million in "hard money". (21)
Listed below are the top twelve states and the total amount spent in each state on the Clinton ad campaign:
| RANK | STATE PARTY | AMOUNT SPENT ON CLINTON ADS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | California | $ 4,156,092 |
| 2 | Pennsylvania | $ 3,809,470 |
| 3 | Florida | $ 3,578,159 |
| 4 | Ohio | $ 2,984,535 |
| 5 | Michigan | $ 2,647,529 |
| 6 | Washington | $ 1,910,807 |
| 7 | Illinois | $ 1,857,482 |
| 8 | Wisconsin | $ 1,470,784 |
| 9 | Minnesota | $ 1,401,058 |
| 10 | Colorado | $ 1,258,217 |
| 11 | Oregon | $ 1,115,941 |
| 12 | Missouri | $ 1,113,584 |
The amounts listed above for the top twelve states represent funds paid by the state parties to the two media firms headed by Robert Squier, Squier Knapp Ochs and the November 5 Group, to pay for the Clinton ad campaign. Based on disclosure reports filed at the FEC, Common Cause has traced virtually all of these "soft money" and "hard money" funds as moving from the DNC to the Democratic state parties involved, and then being paid by the state parties to the two media firms. (23)
It is expected that further expenditures for the Clinton ad campaign will be revealed when the DNC and Democratic state parties file their disclosure reports for the period that covers July 1996 and August 1996. Those reports are due to be filed on October 15, 1996.
According to E. Randolph in "Clinton Camp Sows Televised Seeds of Support in Key Regions," published in The Los Angeles Times (May 22, 1996):
[M]illions of dollars [were spent] on ads touting President Clinton's reelection in various carefully selected markets. In what is called a "stealth" campaign by some, the party has mostly avoided buying ads in big cities where air time is costly and voters tend to lean Democratic anyway. The Democratic strategists are hoping to firm up support for their ticket early.
The report continued:
Republicans and news organizations have been tracking the Democratic advertising buys, providing a picture of where the money has been concentrated. According to tracking done for CNN, Clinton has put his money in twenty-four states. The campaign has avoided states that he won by large margins in 1992 and where his strategists believe that he is well ahead now. These include New York, Massachusetts, West Virginia and Vermont. They have also largely stayed away from places where they believe that Clinton has no real chance -- Texas, the tier of states in the Great Plains north of Texas to North Dakota, and such southern Republican strongholds as South Carolina, Alabama and Virginia.
In sum, the Clinton Committee and its agents, acting through the DNC, targeted a $27 million Clinton ad campaign to run in twelve presidental battleground states.
The ads run by the Clinton Committee and its agents through the DNC, from the summer of 1995 through the summer of 1996, were the same kind of ads that any candidate would run to promote his candidacy or criticize his opponent.
The following are examples of some of the ads:
(Graphic: 1991) Recession, jobs lost. The Dole-GOP bill tries to deny nearly a million families unemployment benefits.
(Graphic: 1992) Higher interest rates. Ten million unemployed. With a Dole amendment, Republicans try to block more job training.
(Graphic: 1996 and images of Clinton) Today: We make more autos than Japan; record construction jobs; mortgage rates down; ten million new jobs; more women-owned companies than ever. The President's plan -- education, job training, economic growth -- for a better future. (25)
60,000 felons and fugitives tried to buy handguns -- but couldn't -- because President Clinton passed the Brady Bill -- five-day waits, background checks. But Dole and Gingrich voted no. One hundred thousand new police -- because President Clinton delivered. Dole and Gingrich? Vote no, want to repeal 'em. Strengthen school anti-drug programs. President Clinton did it. Dole and Gingrich? No again. Their old ways don't work. President Clinton's plan. The new way. Meeting our challenges, protecting our values. (26)
America's values. Head Start. Student loans. Toxic cleanup. Extra police. Protected in the budget agreement; the president stood firm. Dole, Gingrich's latest plan includes tax hikes on working families. Up to eighteen million children face health care cuts. Medicare slashed $167 billion. Then Dole resigns, leaving behind gridlock he and Gingrich created. The president's plan: Politics must wait. Balance the budget, reform welfare, protect our values. (27)
Head Start. Student loans. Toxic cleanup. Extra police. Anti-drugs programs. Dole, Gingrich wanted them cut. Now they're safe. Protected in the 1996 budget -- because the President stood firm. Dole, Gingrich? Deadlock. Gridlock. Shutdowns. The president's plan? Finish the job, balance the budget. Reform welfare. Cut taxes. Protect Medicare. President Clinton says get it done. Meet our challenges. Protect our values. (28)
The president says give every child a chance for college with a tax cut that gives $1,500 a year for two years making most community colleges free, all colleges more affordable. ... And for adults, a chance to learn, find a better job. The president's tuition tax cut plan. ... (29)
Protecting families. For millions of working families, President Clinton cut taxes. The Dole-Gingrich budget tried to raise taxes on eight million. The Dole-Gringrich budget would have slashed Medicare $270 billion. Cut college scholarships. The president defended our values. Protected Medicare. And now, a tax cut of $1,500 a year for the first two years of college. Most community colleges free. Help adults go back to school. The president's plan protects our values. (30)
All of these ads were produced by Robert Squier, the Clinton Committee's chief media strategist.
According to B. Woodward's, "Clinton Called Shots for Party Ad Blitz", published in The Washington Post (June 25, 1996):
By spring 1996, Clinton personally had been controlling tens of millions of dollars worth of DNC advertising. This enabled him to exceed the spending limits and effectively rendered the DNC an adjunct to his own reelection effort. ... For practical purposes, Clinton's control of the party advertising -- and his aggressive use of it going back to the first Medicare ads the previous August -- gave him at least $25 million more money for the primary period. That was in addition to the $37 million the Clinton-Gore campaign was authorized to spend under the law.
Further:
By using the Democratic National Committee money for advertising, Clinton's managers were able to continue to save much of the Clinton-Gore campaign money. And the Morris-Squier advertising blitz was in full force. In the fall [of 1995], the ads attacking the Republican budget had covered some thirty percent of all media markets in the nation. The December [1995] 30-second commercials followed the pattern showing Clinton as champion crime fighter and as the leader seeking tax cuts, welfare reform and a balanced budget that would protect vital health programs, education and the environment.
By Christmas, the pro-Clinton ads had been on the air in an incredible forty-two percent of the national media markets. The advertising pattern was designed to project one theme as spot after spot showed Clinton as a figure of national reconciliation, a healer bringing the various sides together, who rounded the sharp edges of the Republicans. ... By the end of [1995], $18 million had been spent on this extraordinary media campaign. (31)
This record shows that the Clinton Committee and its agents prepared, directed and controlled the ad campaign, targeted the ads to run in presidential battleground states, and prepared ads that named President Clinton and promoted his candidacy or named Senator Dole and criticized him.
The record shows that the Clinton campaign used the DNC as a conduit to run an ad campaign during the period from July 1, 1995 to June 30, 1996 -- costing at least $34 million and using at least $22 million in "soft money" -- to directly support President Clinton's reelection effort.
Under these circumstances, it is plainly correct that the ads involved here are ads of the Clinton Committee and its agents within the meaning of the federal campaign finance laws. The expenditures for those ads therefore must be counted against the expenditure limits applicable to President Clinton's reelection campaign and the money used to finance the ads must comply with the contribution limitations and prohibitions of the FECA.
(Return To Common Cause Home Page)