The Washington Post is out with an interesting article that crunches the numbers and finds out where all the money is going when it comes to negative campaign ads. Here is a table showing the top 10 candidates who have been attacked the most.
1.) Thom Tillis (R) North Carolina, $26 million spent against
2.) Cory Gardner (R) Colorado, $23 million spent against
3.) Joni Ernst (R) Iowa, $19 million spent against
4.) Mark Udall (D) Colorado, $15 million spent against
5.) Alison Lundergan Grimes (D) Kentucky, $14 million spent against
6.) Terri Lynn Land (R) Michigan, $14 million spent against
7.) Tom Cotton (R) Arkansas, $13 million spent against
8.) Kay Hagan (D) North Carolina, $13 million spent against
9.) Bruce Braley (D) Iowa, $13 million spent against
10.) Dan Sullivan (R) Alaska, $12 million spent against
6 Republicans, 4 Democrats.
“The top three, we would note, are Republicans — a fact that owes in part to Democrats’ advantage on the airwaves.
But the chart, we would emphasize, doesn’t paint the whole picture. That’s because more than 60 days before an election, outside groups don’t have to disclose so-called “issue ads” that are often thinly veiled negative ads. Ads that directly advocate for or against a candidate — and issue ads within 60 days of an election — are disclosed and included in the chart above, but plenty has been spent on “issue ads” before early September.
North Carolina Sen. Kay Hagan (D), for instance, faced a lot of these ads early in the 2014 election cycle from the conservative group Americans for Prosperity. Those ads won’t show up on this chart, but their purpose was pretty clear. In all, AFP is expected to spend more than $125 million this election cycle, but the group will only report a tiny fraction of that spending to the Federal Election Commission.”