Yesterday, I wrote about the various outside groups – at least 3 of which are “headquartered” out of PO boxes at retail shops around the country – who are spending money by the thousands in an effort to influence elections here in Indiana.

These groups are targeting a few specific races here in Indiana, and – unsurprisingly – are spending their money on the handful of competitive races for national office.

Let’s start with my home Congressional district, Indiana’s 9th. It’s one of only two races in Indiana where outside money has topped the $1 million dollar mark so far this cycle, according to the Sunlight Foundation’s excellent tracking tools. As the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette’s Sylvia Smith reported last week, the outside spending has gone overwhelmingly in one direction. When she wrote her piece, the trend was clear:

Money is also pouring into the race between Rep. Baron Hill, D-9th, and Republican Todd Young in the southeastern corner of the state. Groups trying to defeat Hill have spent $447,863; a union defending him has spent $161,921.

Using the most recent data, the numbers look like this:

The biggest spender in the 9th has been the National Republican Congressional Committee, pumping in more than $437,000 to oppose Baron Hill. But the New Prosperity Foundation just followed their $50,000 ad buy last week with another $80,000 in TV advertising opposing Hill. That Chicago-based group has purchased more airtime in the past week than the Young campaign has spent on TV & radio advertising since the start of his campaign ($117,578).

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee have spent just over $311,000, most of it in a $207,000 media buy today, to oppose GOP “Young Gun” candidate, Todd Young. They are the only outside group opposing Young, although a union did buy about $162,000 of ad time in support of Rep. Hill’s re-election campaign in September of 2009.

The most expensive race in the state, though, is up north in Indiana’s 2nd District. Incumbent Blue Dog Democrat Joe Donnelly has been caught in a pricey campaign with state Representative Jackie Walorski. Here are the numbers:

The NRCC has spent more than $400,000 opposing Joe Donnelly, a total nearly matched by the 60 Plus Association’s $393,000. The 60 Plus Association, a group I omitted from my post yesterday, is a conservative organization funded by the nation’s largest pharmaceutical firms. In addition, the New Prosperity Foundation has kicked in $130,000, and the anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony List has spent another $134,500 to try and unseat Donnelly.

On the other side, Donnelly has gotten a boost from more than $300,000 – most spent in the last week – by the National Association of Realtors. The DCCC has spent just over $254,000 in the 2nd District this cycle, most of which was represented by a $156,000 ad buy today. Donnelly’s numbers are somewhat inflated by a union ad buy in support of him last November.

In the race for the open seat in Indiana’s 8th District, the disparity is even greater:

The NRCC has spent just over $181,000 on media and surveys opposing state Representative Trent Van Haaften, while the Americans for Job Security has spent more than $355,000 out of their PO box headquarters trying to influence “Indianans” in the race. The DCCC announced today that is was cancelling an ad buy in the 8th District.

In the Indiana Senate race between Representative Brad Ellsworth and former Senator-turned-lobbyist Dan Coats, the numbers are not huge, but staggeringly unilateral:

More than 76% of all the outside money spent in this race has been in support of Washington, DC North Carolina mega-lobbyist Dan Coats, but that number doesn’t tell the whole truth. If you omit the $90,000 that a union spent supporting Ellsworth last November – when he was still a House candidate – it’s entirely a one-sided matchup.

The biggest spender in this race, by far, is the US Chamber of Commerce, who devoted $250,000 to ads opposing Brad Ellsworth. That media buy represents 74% of the total outside expenditures in this race since both candidates were decided.

I’ll wrap up with a look at some of the other Indiana races and how these numbers look in the context of previous races tomorrow.

Over the past several months, a nonprofit organization has pumped hundreds of thousands of dollars into Indiana’s 8th District Congressional race.

According to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission, Americans for Job Security has spent more than $355,000 since August for TV ads, radio spots, and direct mail pieces opposing Trent Van Haaften. Here’s an example of their work:

Americans for Jobs Security claims to be a nonprofit, and even has a section of its website dedicated to Indiana. But while the logo reads “Hoosiers for Job Security”, the copy on the website reads differently:

Have you ever heard anyone who’s actually from Indiana refer to residents here as “Indianans?” I sure haven’t. But it doesn’t surprise me that a group like Americans for Job Security, headquartered at a PO box at a UPS store in Virginia, can’t even get their basic astroturfing vocabulary straight.

Americans for Job Security was started in 1997 with million-dollar gifts from the American Insurance Association and the American Forest and Paper Association. It’s technically organized as a trade group, and is not required to disclose its donors – it prefers to disguise its fundraising as membership dues. And while the group’s public address is that UPS store drop box, Americans for Job Security actually operates out of the same Republican shop as Crossroads Media, the team behind Karl Rove’s billionaire-funded “shadow GOP”, American Crossroads.

Last month, Eric Bradner wrote a story on the initial ad buy against Van Haaften in the Evansville Courier Press:

The ads, with a buy totaling $5 million behind them, are funded by Americans for Job Security and another Republican-allied group, The 60 Plus Association.

Van Haaften’s spokesman, Zach Knowling, called Americans for Job Security a "shadowy special interest group with big corporate backing."

"This group is spending big to elect Larry Bucshon, who has pledged in writing to support the same corporate tax loopholes that Whirlpool used to ship 1,100 jobs from Evansville to Mexico this summer," Knowling said.

And Americans for Job Security isn’t the only outside group pouring money into the Hoosier state in an effort to influence the 2010 elections.

The American Future Fund has spent more than a quarter of a million dollars trying to unseat Democratic Representative Baron Hill in Indiana’s 9th District. The AFF, which claims it was “formed to provide Americans with a conservative and free market viewpoint”, is organized as a 501(c)4 nonprofit and is headquartered out of a PO box at a UPS store in Iowa. Like other 501(c)4 groups, they do not have to disclose their donors. The AFF might be best known for hiring the producers of the racist “Willie Horton” ads to try and tie a Democratic Congressman in Iowa to plans to build a mosque “at Ground Zero”.

AUL Action, a DC-based arm of the anti-abortion group Americans United for Life, has spent more than $17,000 on radio ads against Baron Hill. But that’s a small expenditure next to the New Prosperity Foundation’s $50,000 radio buy in the 9th District. The New Prosperity Foundation is a Chicago-based organization formed by big-dollar fundraisers for former President Bush that is suddenly pushing into more races outside of Illinois.

Another shadowy group, billing itself as the Coalition to Protect Seniors, has spent thousands on TV ads opposing Baron Hill and Democratic Senate candidate Brad Ellsworth. The “Coalition” was only incorporated on June 30, 2010, and appears to be headquartered out of a PO box at a Delaware Mail Boxes, Etc. store.

In August, the anti-abortion Susan B. Anthony List, spent more than $20,000 on its bus tour opposing Baron Hill, Brad Ellsworth, and 2nd District Congressman Joe Donnelly – all pro-life Democrats.

Senator Max Baucus (D-MT), head of the Senate Finance Committee, has asked the IRS to look into whether these groups are abusing their nonprofit status. His letter specifically mentions Americans for Job Security, but his request would also cover other “nonprofits” that seem to have political campaign activity as their sole reason for existence.

The sad part is, these are just a handful of the independent expenditures here in Indiana since August. I haven’t included any of the thousands of dollars being spent by the national Republican committees, or looked back to see how much these groups and others spent earlier in the year.

Tomorrow, I’ll break down expenditures by candidate and show precisely which Indiana elections are the targets of these outside groups.

Hoosier Representatives Andre Carson, Baron Hill, Brad Ellsworth, and Pete Visclosky all earned the gratitude of their fellow Hoosiers for voting to include the Murphy amendment in this year’s defense spending bill. As you probably know, the amendment instructs the Department of Defense to end the discriminatory policy of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell in the armed services, pending the outcome of a Pentagon review. Democrat Joe Donnelly joined with the remaining Republican delegation (Buyer, Pence, and Burton) to continue excluding gay and lesbian Americans from the service.

Here’s the House version of the amendment, which passed 234-194:

An amendment numbered 79 printed in House Report 111-498 to repeal Dont Ask Dont Tell only after: (1) receipt of the recommendations of the Pentagon’s Comprehensive Review Working Group on how to implement a repeal of DADT (due December 1, 2010) and (2) a certification by the Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and President that repeal is first, consistent with military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion & recruiting, and second, that the DoD has prepared the necessary policies and regulations to implement its repeal. It would also include a 60 day period after certification before the repeal took effect.

And lest you think there’s some principle at play in the GOP opposition to the bill, here’s Steve Buyer ignoring all the evidence:

"It is very clear that homosexuality is incompatible with military service."

In contrast, Rep. Andre Carson released a statement that included this:

"Any patriotic American willing to give his or her life in defense of country should have that opportunity. And our troops should never be forced to lie about who they are in order to continue their service. Today’s vote will help ensure this kind of personal conflict is never an issue for the brave men and women in our military."

Last night, Congress decided that discriminating to please Steve Buyer wasn’t important enough to jeopardize our national security. And 5 Republicans defied GOP Conference Chairman Mike Pence to support repeal.

The fight against DADT isn’t over, but this looks like the beginning of the end. The Senate still has to vote on the final bill – although the Armed Services Committee, including Indiana’s Senator Evan Byah, voted to repeal DADT.

But while the DADT vote is getting all the attention, I was intrigued by a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Gutierrez, which would give the Secretary of Defense the power to review (and end) contracts with BP and their subsidiaries if they are deemed to no longer be a “responsible source”. Reps. Carson, Donnelly, Ellsworth, Hill voted for this amendment. The GOP delegation (joined by Rep. Visclosky) voted against giving the Secretary of Defense and the Pentagon the power to review BP’s contracts.

The Guitierrez amendment passed easily (372-52), but it’s striking to me that all of the Hoosier delegation just last year voted to strip ACORN of any federal contracts despite a lack of any wrongdoing by the group.

So according to Mike Pence, Steve Buyer, and Dan Burton, helping families deal with the foreclosure crisis while being the victims of a badly-edited piece of manufactured conservative outrage means that you don’t deserve any federal contracts – even if a law to that effect might be unconstitutional. On the other hand, if you’re responsible for untold economic and environmental devastation and the deaths of 11 workers, we can’t even look into your contracts if the Defense Department deems that BP is no longer a responsible source.

These GOP congressmen are willing to risk our national security to eject service members from the military because they don’t like them, and they’re willing to risk our security to maintain contracts with a supplier that may be irresponsible. And just a few days before Memorial Day, no less.

These two votes, taken together, show a clear picture of our delegation’s priorities. In the cases of Pence, Buyer, and Burton, it’s clear they’re willing to put just about anything ahead of Hoosier troops, and they’re willing to put their ideology ahead of the Hoosier values of responsibility, fair play and equality under the law.

Last night, Democrat Mark Critz won the special election to fill Jack Murtha’s old seat in Pennsylvania’s 12th district. This race in a swing district (Voted Kerry in ‘04, McCain in ‘08) was hyped by Fox News and many Democratic sources as a bellwether race.

Critz’s solid victory brought out the usual spin from the GOP, but Democratic strategist Paul Begala pointed out that there was a good reason for this Democratic victory (partial transcript below):

Begala: "Mark Critz ran attacking the Republican for – guess what – cutting spending! He attacked him for being against Medicare. He attacked him for wanting to privatize Social Security. He attacked on the very sorts of issues that Democrats generally win on."

Even Politico, usually a faithful transcriber of every GOP press release, credited Critz’s Democratic message:

In the case of Critz, that meant hammering Burns as being in favor of outsourcing jobs overseas and highlighting his willingness to cut Social Security benefits – significant liabilities in an economically-beleaguered and aging congressional district.

Case in point:

While no two elections are exactly alike, it’s not hard to draw parallels to races here in Indiana, and especially to the Senate race between Brad Ellsworth and DC lobbyist Dan Coats.

Last week, Coats endorsed the Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget plan, which called for the privatization of Social Security and the elimination of Medicare. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee immediately picked up on it and attacked Coats for this giant giveaway to his former lobbying clients on Wall Street.

The GOP and Coats will try to paint the Ellsworth as a lackey of Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi, like Tim Burns did in PA-12. (In fact, they’re doing it already. I think it’s mandatory for every post on their anti-Ellsworth propaganda site to mention Pelosi at least once.) But as this special election showed, a 50-foot tall cartoon Nancy Pelosi can’t compete with Democrats who run on the issues – even in a district where Obama’s approval rating is as low at 35%.

Democrats can win in tough districts if we emphasize our values and priorities – and that shouldn’t be hard to do against a lobbyist who worked to help his clients ship American jobs overseas and wants to raise taxes on 90% of Americans.

(Crossposted at BlueIndiana)