WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A wide-open presidential race and a willingness by candidates, interest groups, unions and corporations to buy TV time will lead to historic spending for political and issue-advocacy advertising in the 2008 election cycle, an analysis shows.

 

 

 

The cost to try to influence the 2008 election could exceed $3 billion, according to TNS Media Intelligence/Campaign Media Analysis Group, CNN's consultant on political television advertising.

 

This is nearly twice as much than what was spent in 2004 when political and issue-advocacy television advertising rang in at $1.7 billion. In 2006, $2.3 billion was spent on political and issue-advocacy TV commercials.

 

Just about every candidate running for an office from dogcatcher to president is spending the money, said Evan Tracey, CMAG's chief operating officer.

 

The costs to produce a TV commercial are no longer prohibitive for local and state candidates, who are turning more and more to the airwaves to reach voters.

 

 

 

And interest groups have spent $6.2 million on TV ads so far this year for state and local ballot measures.

 

On the national level, the cost of issue-advocacy television ad spending was $270 million in the first nine months of this year. Subjects ranged from the Iraq war to telecommunications reform. Television ads on health care alone total $60 million.

 

CMAG estimates more than $3 million of the $270 million spent to air issue-advocacy ads this year has gone for commercials in states and districts that are likely to have competitive House and Senate races in 2008.

 

Tracey said he thinks this is just the beginning of interest groups "pivoting from legislative advocacy mode to political mode."

 

 

 

"What we expect to see between now and the end of the primaries, and through the general election, is groups will take a more aggressive stance on their advertising and actually target candidates," he said.

 

With 17 Democratic and Republican candidates running for president, CMAG predicts that more than $800 million will be spent on TV ads in the battle for the White House.

 

Up to now, the political commercials have been largely focused on the early states of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. Voters in some of the 20-plus states holding nominating contests on February 5 will start seeing ads in the coming months.

 

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney leads all candidates in TV spending, having aired his commercials more than 11,000 times this year at a cost of nearly $8.6 million. This is a record for the number of airings at this point in a presidential election cycle. Watch how Romney is way ahead in ad spending ?

 

In contrast, one of Romney's chief rivals for the GOP nomination, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, has spent nothing on television ads, but Giuliani leads in the national polls and is within striking distance of the lead in several state surveys.

 

Giuliani enjoys widespread national name recognition, while Romney does not.

 

In the race for the Democratic nomination, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama has spent more than $2.3 million on television commercials, while New York Sen. Hillary Clinton has spent $1 million less and leads in both national and early state polls.

 

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson has probably benefited the most in the Democratic contest from the $2 million he has invested in his television commercials.

 

Richardson's humorous TV ads effectively stated his experience as a lawmaker, diplomat and executive, and positioned him as a solid second-tier candidate.

 

Romney used his $8.6 million in television ads to introduce himself as a social and fiscal conservative to Republican voters. These voters might otherwise not know much about him other than that he was the governor of the traditionally liberal Massachusetts.

 

Romney is leading polls in the early voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire.

 

Further evidence of how Romney's television commercials have helped is in South Carolina.

 

An American Research Group poll of South Carolina Republicans in August showed Romney registering at 9 percent with these influential primary voters. A month later, and with $350,000 worth of commercials aired in the two weeks leading up to the next poll, Romney was up 17 percentage points.

 

Romney's latest ad began airing Friday in Iowa, and in it he vows to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, to boost the military by 100,000 people, to strengthen U.S. intelligence capabilities and to monitor calls into the U.S. from al Qaeda.

 

All of these issues should play well with conservatives who participate in the Iowa caucuses.

 

While only a handful of Democratic candidates and Romney have used the airwaves until now, Tracey said he expects this to change.

 

"Before the end of October, I suspect all the frontrunner candidates will be on the air," Tracey said. "As we get closer to primary day, the frontrunners will be joined by all the candidates in the race who are taking their last, best shot."

 

In the fight for Congress, CMAG predicts that as much as $639 million could be spent on television advertising.

 

Democrats control the House and Senate.

 

Tracey noted that CMAG's 2008 election cycle forecast does not take into account unforeseen events such as former Florida Rep. Mark Foley's House page scandal or the September 11 terrorist attacks.

 

"Politics is completely beholden to events," he said. "Events will ultimately determine how much is spent, where and when."

 

 

 

What television advertising challenges do candidates and interest groups face in the coming months?

 

"Chances are, just as what happened in 2006, voters will be numb after watching hundred and hundreds of ads," said Stuart Rothenberg, editor of the non-partisan Rothenberg Political Report. "The sheer number of ads probably dilutes their importance. After a while, the ads just become lots of chatter and an ad will have to be really good to cut through the noise."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/15/ad....ding/index.html

Spending by candidates has really gone out of control. When I heard a month or two ago that it was going to cost nearly $500 million for a candidate to win the presidency in 2008, I was appalled.

 

It just shows how much special interests have destroyed democracy in this country. That and corporations with their huge wallets, and plenty of money to burn.

The government needs to pay for campaigns, and campaign length needs to be limited by statute. In other years, people run for executive positions for a few months. Here, we've been running since the last election.

Right.....

 

Televisions advertisements effect my opinion on a candidate 0%.

The government needs to pay for campaigns

:|

Part of the issue is the right of private non-candidates to spend as much money as they want. Regulations in that regard run afoul of basic tenents of the first amendment, as the Supreme Court has made absolutely clear.

This country is run by a select ammount of elites, its rather disturbing.

This country is run by a select ammount of elites, its rather disturbing.

Exactly why there should be far stricter campaign finance limits. The problem is, no one in Washington will ever do that, because it would be shooting themselves in the foot, essentially. All but a few seem perfectly happy with the current status quo. Of course, this leads to 90%+ incumbent re-election rates, and members of Congress who stop working for the people, and only listen to the special interests and whoever pays the bar tab.

I agree.

 

I'm all for sweeping campaign finance reform.

This country is run by a select ammount of elites, its rather disturbing.

 

Can you elaborate?

This country is run by a select ammount of elites, its rather disturbing.

 

Can you elaborate?

I think that our latest run of presidents is a good sign:

 

1988-1992: Bush Sr.

1992-2000: Bill Clinton

2001-2009: Bush Jr.

2009-?: Hillary Clinton

 

One of several reasons I don't want Hillary winning.

This country is run by a select ammount of elites, its rather disturbing.

 

Can you elaborate?

Look at the worth of some of the leading candidates and the abilty they have to spend out of pocket. The majority of congress truely represents in name only.

 

I have zero problem with personal wealth, but it is nearly impossible for the 'common' man or woman to run for office with what it costs to run a campaign nowadays.

 

I think what GM points out is applicable here too and I've said it before, if Hilary wins this country wil have been run by the same two families for at least a quarter century. That is very, very disturbing to me.

 

It also goes back to an opinion I have that the vast majority of congress runs for office for personal 'enrichment' and in their mind a next natural step in their lives instead of serving and representing the people they are suppossed to.

This country is run by a select ammount of elites, its rather disturbing.

 

Can you elaborate?

I think that our latest run of presidents is a good sign:

 

1988-1992: Bush Sr.

1992-2000: Bill Clinton

2001-2009: Bush Jr.

2009-?: Hillary Clinton

 

One of several reasons I don't want Hillary winning.

fair or not i agree , I do not want to see Hillary win not only because i dont agree with her political views but i find it disturbing that for over 20 year two families have ran this country i know we can do better than only Bush or Clinton

Of course, theoretically the trend could continue if Jeb Bush runs in 2012 or 2016.

Of course, theoretically the trend could continue if Jeb Bush runs in 2012 or 2016.

 

Chelsea in 2024!!!

This country is run by a select ammount of elites, its rather disturbing.

 

Can you elaborate?

Look at the worth of some of the leading candidates and the abilty they have to spend out of pocket. The majority of congress truely represents in name only.

 

I have zero problem with personal wealth, but it is nearly impossible for the 'common' man or woman to run for office with what it costs to run a campaign nowadays.

 

I think what GM points out is applicable here too and I've said it before, if Hilary wins this country wil have been run by the same two families for at least a quarter century. That is very, very disturbing to me.

 

It also goes back to an opinion I have that the vast majority of congress runs for office for personal 'enrichment' and in their mind a next natural step in their lives instead of serving and representing the people they are suppossed to.

 

Perhaps. I think the reason some of the leading candidates and Congressmen have so much personal wealth is because, well, non wealthy people are trying to make it. They don't have time to be involved in politics BS. Most Congressmen and presidents (with the exception of Bill Clinton) are very wealthy before going into public life. It's just a fact of life. People who do well financially have many options open to them.

 

And, to be honest, I don't want a "regular Joe" running the country. I want people with a proven track record of success. Of course, I am not saying that's what we have, but ideally you want the best and the brightest running things.

I believe the Juanky Robaina for President campaign was launched a few years ago.

 

So there is our only chance for a non-rich white guy president.

 

Start eating the Cheerios and stay away from the fried foods!

This country is run by a select ammount of elites, its rather disturbing.

 

Can you elaborate?

Look at the worth of some of the leading candidates and the abilty they have to spend out of pocket. The majority of congress truely represents in name only.

 

I have zero problem with personal wealth, but it is nearly impossible for the 'common' man or woman to run for office with what it costs to run a campaign nowadays.

 

I think what GM points out is applicable here too and I've said it before, if Hilary wins this country wil have been run by the same two families for at least a quarter century. That is very, very disturbing to me.

 

It also goes back to an opinion I have that the vast majority of congress runs for office for personal 'enrichment' and in their mind a next natural step in their lives instead of serving and representing the people they are suppossed to.

 

Perhaps. I think the reason some of the leading candidates and Congressmen have so much personal wealth is because, well, non wealthy people are trying to make it. They don't have time to be involved in politics BS. Most Congressmen and presidents (with the exception of Bill Clinton) are very wealthy before going into public life. It's just a fact of life. People who do well financially have many options open to them.

 

And, to be honest, I don't want a "regular Joe" running the country. I want people with a proven track record of success. Of course, I am not saying that's what we have, but ideally you want the best and the brightest running things.

Like I said, they are no longer serving, it is just a logical step in their personal enrichment.

 

That is not good.