Early voting is underway for May 24 runoffs. History shows how one primary race for a state house seat can create a political tsunami for the entire legislature. Voters, however, are often frustrated at the difficulty of learning about “down-ballot races.” In “down-ballot races,” endorsements are very probative. Endorsements reveal what faction of a political party with which a candidate is aligned.
Campaign contributions are a form of endorsement. The Texas Ethics Commission regulates state-level campaign finance. In addition to semi-annual reporting in January and June, a candidate must report contributions and expenditures on certain days before election day. On Weekly Witness this week, we discussed the “8-Day Reports” for the May 24th runoff. For capitol insiders, the 8-Day Reports are a treasure trove of information on “what kind of Republican or Democrat” a “down-ballot” candidate is. However, many voters struggle to interpret these reports assuming voters even know where to find them.
For subscribers, Quorum Report’s James Russell has an excellent run down. For those searching reports on their own, it helps to categorize a contributor as either “institutional” or “ideological.” Institutional money represents things like agriculture, healthcare, utilities, correctional officers, or public education. They also can be local in nature such as a local beer distributor, or local fire or police departments.
By contrast, ideological money usually leads back to an independently wealthy billionaire. “Independent” is a keyword. That independence means there is no accountability to a larger institutional enterprise—only their own ideology. Sometimes the billionaire gives directly to a candidate, other times indirectly through a PAC or 501c4 nonprofit, and often both. More often than not, institutional money gives to both parties and ideological money attempts to “purify” a political party.
In the 8 Day Reports, things on the Republican side look just like they have for more than a decade. Institutional money is squaring off against ideological money. Business interests are trying to elect reasonable candidates, and ideological groups are trying to elect loyalists. Even if the ideological groups lose, their efforts instill fear for the next round of primaries. Frankly, the institutional money has failed to invest in a mobilizing infrastructure that the ideological money has, but this grassroots money is beyond the scope of a campaign finance report.
On the Democratic side, a significant increase in voter participation in 2018 and 2020 primaries has led to a more interesting primary cycle in 2022. In South Texas, several races divide on ideological lines between moderate and progressive candidates. Observers will be watching to see how ideology plays out in the historically more conservative and low voter turnout region of the state, and whether those results have any effects on November after Republicans gerrymandered several districts to be more swing. At the statewide level, a couple races will test the prevalence of identity politics on the electability of candidates.