Feed on
Posts
Comments

Reblogged from: Wesconnect News. (Go to the original post…)

By Keren Alshanetsky ’17

[Ayanda Clarke '99] Grammy Award-winning master percussionist Ayanda Clarke ’99 and his father, Neil Clarke, were installed as Chiefs in Nigeria last month. Honored with the chieftaincy title for his commitment to African music and culture, Ayanda is now Ajibilu Awo of Osogbo, Chief Ayanda Ifadara Clarke.

Ayanda Clarke studied ethnomusicology at Wesleyan and followed in his father’s footsteps to become a world-class musician in the percussive arts:

“Like both his parents, Ayanda’s life reflects a full embrace of traditional African culture . . . While thriving in multi-racial environments during his formative years, Ayanda always identified proudly as an African. Effortlessly, this prodigious-child-turned-chief maintains these values in all aspects of his life. And after 35 years of study, training, and performing around the world, he has emerged as one of the most outstanding percussionists of his generation, according to his peers and elders.”

The chieftaincy titles were awarded during a daylong ceremony in Osogbo, a Nigerian city where indigenous African art and tradition are highly revered:

“Perhaps the greatest significance here is in how powerfully these chieftaincies demonstrate the unity and sacred bond among people of African ancestry. Hosted by High Priest Ifayemi Elebuibon, Araba Awo of Osogbo, at his palace, the honors also set a precedent. Never before have American-born father and son percussionists been installed as chiefs in Osogbo.”

Read more…

Image: c/o The Fadara Group

Share this link: wesconnect.wesleyan.edu/news-20160926-ayanda-clarke

Related links

[Facebook]Like Ayanda Clarke on Facebook ➞

Don’t have a Facebook account, but want to comment? Email us.

Reblogged from: Wesconnect News. (Go to the original post…)

By Keren Alshanetsky ’17

[Andrew Prescott '98] Former marketing manager Andrew Prescott ’98 now runs Urban Cycles, a Boston bike shop that sells, rents and repairs bikes and bike-related gear.

He opened the store and became its Chief Wheel Officer six years after launching Urban AdvenTours in 2004, which offers guided bicycle tours around Boston and Cambridge. Both businesses were inspired by Prescott’s junior year abroad in Copenhagen, where he found the infrastructure for cyclists to be extensive and impressive.

Asked about the best part of his job, Prescott gives this example:

“Ater a challenging day I walked into the shop — this was about two weeks ago — and I saw a customer, who I remembered from having sold a bike to him and his family. He’s a very playful guy, he’s a doctor, and I joked, “I thought I told you, you weren’t allowed back in here,” and he said, “Oh, my God. You changed my life. We ride our bikes all over Charlestown as a family and we are having so much fun and we’re back here to buy some more stuff.” If you don’t get those things, forget it. That’s what you go for.

Looking forward Prescott hopes to launch more apparel, offer rural AdvenTours and expand tour offerings into Vermont, with the goal of growing the company and combating challenges to his business the likes of Boston’s bike-sharing program.

Read more…

Image: c/o New England Today

Share this link: wesconnect.wesleyan.edu/news-20160923-andrew-prescott

Related links

[Facebook]Add Andrew Prescott on Facebook ➞

[Twitter] follow @UrbanAdvenTours on Twitter ➞

[LinkedIn] connect with Andrew Prescott on LinkedIn ➞

Don’t have a Facebook account, but want to comment? Email us.

Reblogged from: Wesconnect News. (Go to the original post…)

By Keren Alshanetsky ’17

[Andrew Prescott '98] Former marketing manager Andrew Prescott ’98 now runs Urban Cycles, a Boston bike shop that sells, rents and repairs bikes and bike-related gear.

He opened the store and became its Chief Wheel Officer six years after launching Urban AdvenTours in 2004, which offers guided bicycle tours around Boston and Cambridge. Both businesses were inspired by Prescott’s junior year abroad in Copenhagen, where he found the infrastructure for cyclists to be extensive and impressive.

Asked about the best part of his job, Prescott gives this example:

“Ater a challenging day I walked into the shop — this was about two weeks ago — and I saw a customer, who I remembered from having sold a bike to him and his family. He’s a very playful guy, he’s a doctor, and I joked, “I thought I told you, you weren’t allowed back in here,” and he said, “Oh, my God. You changed my life. We ride our bikes all over Charlestown as a family and we are having so much fun and we’re back here to buy some more stuff.” If you don’t get those things, forget it. That’s what you go for.

Looking forward Prescott hopes to launch more apparel, offer rural AdvenTours and expand tour offerings into Vermont, with the goal of growing the company and combating challenges to his business the likes of Boston’s bike-sharing program.

Read more…

Image: c/o New England Today

Share this link: wesconnect.wesleyan.edu/news-20160923-andrew-prescott

Related links

[Facebook]Add Andrew Prescott on Facebook ➞

[Twitter] follow @UrbanAdvenTours on Twitter ➞

[LinkedIn] connect with Andrew Prescott on LinkedIn ➞

Don’t have a Facebook account, but want to comment? Email us.

Reblogged from: Class of 2017. (Go to the original post…)

2017’ers,

I hope you are getting into your classes and the rhythm of the semester—and are enjoying being a senior!  

With drop/add over, CHECK YOUR CREDIT ANALYSIS to make sure you are all set to meet degree requirements by the end of the spring semester so that you can walk in the ceremony and graduate on May 28!!! 

Update Your Major Certification Form (MCF)

December Completions should submit a completed form by September 30; May Completions should do so early in the spring semester.  This tool both tracks your progress in the major and is used by your department to confirm that you have completed major requirements. 

 Grading Option/Schedule Confirmation Deadline

September 30 is the deadline for choosing a grading mode for courses that offer the option.  It is also the deadline for confirming the accuracy of your schedule so be sure to check!

Thesis & Essay Writers

The library is offering workshops on research sources and interlibrary loan and other services for seniors writing a thesis or an essay. Sessions will be offered on Mon. 9/26, Tues. 9/27, Wed. 9/28, and Thurs. 9/29 at 11 a.m, 1 p.m and 3 p.m. each day. No need to sign up ahead of time. Choose a date and time convenient for you and join a group for a 45-minute info session at Olin Library’s Reference Office. Attendees will be granted expanded interlibrary loan privileges. Contact Kendall Hobbs, Reference Librarian, at khobbs@wesleyan.edu with questions.  

Work at Homecoming and Family Weekends
This year’s Homecoming (Oct.21-22) and Family Weekends (Oct. 28-30) are fast approaching, and we need student employees! Aside from getting paid, you’ll also have the unique opportunity to help out with one of Wesleyan’s most important events, make lasting connections with alumni, and represent the student body to hundreds of visitors and guests. Fill out and submit the student worker application by Wed., Oct. 5 at 5 PM, and we will notify you of your employment status no later than Mon., Oct. 10.  Note: Homecoming is during fall break.  There will be a mandatory student employee meeting on Wed., Oct. 26 at 5 PM. If you are hired, you must attend this meeting to receive your work schedules, event staff T-shirt, and other important event information.  If you have any questions, please contact us at aprinterns@wesleyan.edu.  Best, Nisha Grewal ’17, Avva Saniee ’17, Amanda Yeoh ’19 & Maxine Gibb ’19 

I have loved seeing so many of you already this semester.  Don’t hesitate to drop in, make an appointment, or email me with questions or concerns.  Best, Dean Brown

 

Reblogged from: Class of 2017. (Go to the original post…)

2017’ers,

I hope you are getting into your classes and the rhythm of the semester—and are enjoying being a senior!  

With drop/add over, CHECK YOUR CREDIT ANALYSIS to make sure you are all set to meet degree requirements by the end of the spring semester so that you can walk in the ceremony and graduate on May 28!!! 

Update Your Major Certification Form (MCF)

December Completions should submit a completed form by September 30; May Completions should do so early in the spring semester.  This tool both tracks your progress in the major and is used by your department to confirm that you have completed major requirements. 

 Grading Option/Schedule Confirmation Deadline

September 30 is the deadline for choosing a grading mode for courses that offer the option.  It is also the deadline for confirming the accuracy of your schedule so be sure to check!

Thesis & Essay Writers

The library is offering workshops on research sources and interlibrary loan and other services for seniors writing a thesis or an essay. Sessions will be offered on Mon. 9/26, Tues. 9/27, Wed. 9/28, and Thurs. 9/29 at 11 a.m, 1 p.m and 3 p.m. each day. No need to sign up ahead of time. Choose a date and time convenient for you and join a group for a 45-minute info session at Olin Library’s Reference Office. Attendees will be granted expanded interlibrary loan privileges. Contact Kendall Hobbs, Reference Librarian, at khobbs@wesleyan.edu with questions.  

Work at Homecoming and Family Weekends
This year’s Homecoming (Oct.21-22) and Family Weekends (Oct. 28-30) are fast approaching, and we need student employees! Aside from getting paid, you’ll also have the unique opportunity to help out with one of Wesleyan’s most important events, make lasting connections with alumni, and represent the student body to hundreds of visitors and guests. Fill out and submit the student worker application by Wed., Oct. 5 at 5 PM, and we will notify you of your employment status no later than Mon., Oct. 10.  Note: Homecoming is during fall break.  There will be a mandatory student employee meeting on Wed., Oct. 26 at 5 PM. If you are hired, you must attend this meeting to receive your work schedules, event staff T-shirt, and other important event information.  If you have any questions, please contact us at aprinterns@wesleyan.edu.  Best, Nisha Grewal ’17, Avva Saniee ’17, Amanda Yeoh ’19 & Maxine Gibb ’19 

I have loved seeing so many of you already this semester.  Don’t hesitate to drop in, make an appointment, or email me with questions or concerns.  Best, Dean Brown

 

Reblogged from: Wesleyan Photo. (Go to the original post…)

The student-curated exhibit Draw Yourself In is on display in the College of East Asian Studies’ gallery through Dec. 9. Featuring some of the Mansfield Freeman Center’s finest works, Draw Yourself In is an audience-participation exhibit and gallery-goers are encouraged to reimagine the exhibited works in new forms and mediums.

During the exhibit’s opening, guests used colored pencils and paper to draw sections of— or draw themselves into — the artwork.

“We’d like you to put away your cameras and phones and look closely at the details in this exhibit,” said Mansfield Freeman Center Curator Patrick Dowdey. “But please draw. Drawing something lets you interact with a work more closely and allows you to see things you might miss. And if you don’t want to draw, write a poem, or a story, or make up movements. React to the artwork.”

Reblogged from: Wesleyan Photo. (Go to the original post…)

On Sept. 21, students enjoyed a peaceful moment outside the Center for East Asian Studies’ tatami room (shôyôan). The room overlooks a Japanese-style garden (shôyôan teien).

“Shôyôan” was built in September 1987, by master carpenter Takagaki Hiroshi and his apprentice Kaneko Ryosei, using traditional Japanese tools and techniques. The ensemble provides a tangible means of experiencing Japanese aesthetics and exploring the cultural values that these spaces embody. The room and garden are actively used for a wide variety of purposes, ranging from meetings of small classes and Japanese tea ceremonies to quiet contemplation and meditation.

In a traditional Japanese house, a room such as “shôyôan” would function as a multi-purpose space, serving alternately as living room, dining room, study, and bedroom, according to the needs of the family. 

Reblogged from: Wesleyan Media Project. (Go to the original post…)

Parties, Republican Groups Staying Out of Presidential Race,
but Trump Advertising at Same Pace as Romney in 2012;
Senate Advertising Heats Up: Outside Group Activity Continues to Break Records;
Third of Group Ads are Dark Money

September 20, 2016

1

Report Highlights

• Pro-Clinton ads dominating in most markets (Figures 1 & 2)
• Party ads and pro-GOP group ads down in Pres. race (Table 2)
• Pres. advertising is more negative in 2016 (Table 3)
• Only Clinton reaching out through Spanish-Language advertising (Go to section)
• Pres. ad spending nearly $600M for more than 700K ads (Table 4)
• Jobs and employment top the list of presidential issues (Table 11)
• Libertarian candidate places ads outside of swing states (Go to section)
• Senate race ads sponsored by outside groups reach an all-time high (Figure 3)
• 2016 Senate advertising heats up in last month ( Table 5)
• Top US Senate races, PA and NV leading way (Table 6)
• NC, MT and MO leading 2016 Governor races (Table 7)
• MT, ME and MN top list of US House races (Table 8)
• Top group advertisers in 2016 election cycle (Table 9)
• Dark money makes up a third of Senate advertising (Table 10)

1
(MIDDLETOWN, CT) September 20, 2016 – Although Donald Trump and his allies are now advertising in battleground states, advertising favoring Trump has not kept pace with advertising favoring Clinton. Since August 19, the date the Trump campaign aired its first ad in the general election, the Clinton campaign and allied organizations (such as Priorities USA Action) have aired almost 62,000 ads, compared with about 27,000 spots by Trump and groups that support him.

1

“Pro-Clinton ads have outnumbered pro-Trump ads by over two to one in the past month, and yet the polls have moved in Trump’s direction during that same time frame,” said Travis Ridout, co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project. “That doesn’t necessarily mean that ads aren’t working this year, but it does suggest that the larger media narrative has been more important than exposure to advertising in moving voters.”

1

Figure 1 shows the geographic advertising advantage for each candidate with red showing Trump advantages and blue showing Clinton advantages.


1

Figure 1: Advertising Advantages in the Presidential Race, by Market (Since 8/19)

figure1_png2

1

Figure 2 provides further illustration of the market advantages by plotting the number of pro-Clinton ads in each media market on the x-axis and the number of pro-Trump ads in each media market on the y-axis. The dots above the line show the small number of media markets in which pro-Trump ads have outnumbered pro-Clinton ads. These markets are mainly found in those states in which Clinton has had a decent polling lead, including Michigan (Lansing, Detroit and Grand Rapids), Virginia (Roanoke), and Colorado (Colorado Springs, Denver and Grand Junction). They also include some very small media markets in battleground states, such as Ottumwa and Sioux City in Iowa, Lima in Ohio and Burlington, Vermont, which reaches parts of New Hampshire.


1

Figure 2: Plot of Clinton and Trump ads by Media Market (Since August 19)

figure2_png
1


In most media markets, however, pro-Clinton ads have dominated. Table 1 lists the 20 media markets that have received the greatest number of ads in the past month, broken down by party. The last column shows that pro-Democratic ads range from 60 percent of the total in Toledo to 85 percent of the total in Las Vegas.

1

Table 1: Volume of Presidential Ads by Media Market (Since August 19)

Market Dem Ads Dem Est. Cost
(in Millions)
Rep Ads Rep Est. Cost Total Ads Total Cost % Dem
Figures are from August 19, 2016 to September 15, 2016.
Numbers include broadcast television, national network and national cable.
CITE SOURCE OF DATA AS: Kantar Media/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project.
Orlando 3,614 4.2 1,716 1.9 5,330 6.1 67.8
Tampa 3,342 3.2 1,698 1.4 5,040 4.6 66.3
Charlotte 2,843 1.8 964 0.7 3,807 2.5 74.7
W. Palm Beach 2,537 1.2 1,217 0.5 3,754 1.7 67.6
Greensboro 2,539 0.7 916 0.3 3,455 0.9 73.5
Raleigh 2,548 1.4 892 0.5 3,440 1.9 74.1
Cleveland 2,193 2.1 1,092 0.8 3,285 2.9 66.8
Philadelphia 2,025 1.8 1,128 1.2 3,153 3.0 64.2
Columbus 1,820 1.3 1,081 0.7 2,901 2.0 62.7
Las Vegas 2,447 1.4 381 0.3 2,865 1.8 85.4
Jacksonville 1,668 0.5 977 0.3 2,645 0.9 63.1
Dayton 1,738 0.7 829 0.4 2,567 1.1 67.7
Pittsburgh 1,894 1.1 668 0.5 2,562 1.6 73.9
Cincinnati 1,625 0.9 883 0.5 2,508 1.4 64.8
Harrisburg 1,624 0.7 836 0.5 2,460 1.2 66.0
Toledo 1,467 0.7 959 0.4 2,426 1.1 60.5
Wilmington 1,673 0.2 677 0.1 2,350 0.3 71.2
Des Moines 1,780 0.8 353 0.2 2,206 1.0 80.7
Reno 1,610 0.5 407 0.2 2,064 0.7 78.0
Cedar Rapids 1,613 0.5 325 0.1 2,005 0.6 80.4


1

Compared to the same period in 2012, the volume of television advertising is down in the presidential race (Table 2). In 2012, 152,000 ads aired in the presidential race between August 19 and September 15, but only 89,000 ads aired during that same time period in the current cycle. On the Democratic side, group advertising is actually up 65 percent over 2012 totals (over 11,500 compared to just over 7,000 in 2012), but Clinton has aired nearly 27,500 fewer ads than Obama did during the same period.

1

“Contrary to what we saw this summer, the major reason for the decline in advertising on the Republican side over the last month is not that the Trump campaign has been sitting back but that outside groups have not come in to help him like they did with Romney in 2012,” said Erika Franklin Fowler, co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project. “In fact, the Trump campaign actually put more ads on the air in the August 19 to September 15 period than did the Romney campaign four years ago.”

1

Another factor contributing to the decline of advertising in the presidential race is that the political parties have been absent, unlike in 2012 when the Republican Party, especially, paid for a considerable number of ads.


1

Table 2: Presidential Ad Totals by Party and Sponsorship in 2012 and 2016

    Candidates Party/ Coordinated Groups Total
Figures are from August 19, 2016 to September 15, 2016. Numbers include broadcast television, national network and national cable.
CITE SOURCE OF DATA AS: Kantar Media/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project.
2012 Pro-Democratic
Ads aired 77,731 1,096 7,015 85,842
Row % 90.6% 1.3% 8.2%
Est. Cost $40.0M $0.5M $3.4M
2012 Pro-Republican
Ads aired 22,489 7,801 36,800 67,090
Row % 33.5% 11.6% 54.9%
Est. Cost $13.8M $5.4M $29.0M
2016 Pro-Democratic
Ads aired 50,267 11,549 61,816
Row % 81.3% 18.7%
Est. Cost $33.5M $9.3M
% count chg -35.3% 64.6% -28.0%
2016 Pro-Republican
Ads aired 23,435 3,803 27,238
Row % 86.0% 14.0%
Est. Cost $14.2M $3.2M
% count chg 4.2% -89.7% -59.4%


1

Libertarian Johnson Focuses Outside Swing States

Trump and Clinton are not the only candidates on the air. In the past month, Libertarian Gary Johnson has aired almost 1,700 ads across the country. But instead of focusing all of his efforts in the most competitive battleground states, he has been concentrating his advertising efforts in states such as Maine, Oregon, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin and his home state of New Mexico. Still, his ad totals are very small in comparison to the Democratic and Republican tickets.

1

Presidential Ad Race Filled With Attacks

The numbers confirm what most people assumed from the start: this presidential race would be a nasty one. As Table 3 shows, 53.4 percent of ad airings in the past month have been negative (up from 48 percent for the comparable period in 2012), which we define as ads focused solely on an opponent. Another 27.9 percent have been contrast (down from 41 percent in 2012), which are those mentioning both the favored candidate and the opponent. Just 18.7 percent of ads have been positive, those focused solely on the favored candidate, but that is up from only 11 percent in the comparable period in 2012.

Clinton and Trump have taken different approaches with their advertising. Just over 60 percent of Clinton’s ads have attacked Trump while 31 percent have been positive, focusing on Clinton. Trump, on the other hand, has by and large used contrast ads, which both promote himself and attack Clinton. He has aired no positive ads. The groups that support the candidates have been extremely negative; all pro-Clinton group-sponsored ads have been negative, while 93.7 percent of pro-Trump group-sponsored ads have been negative.


1

Table 3: Tone of Presidential Advertising

Pro-Clinton   Negative Contrast Positive
Figures are from August 19 to September 15, 2016. 
Numbers include broadcast television, national network and national cable.
CITE SOURCE OF DATA AS:  Kantar Media/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project
Candidate 60.9% 7.7% 31.4%
Group 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Pro-Trump Negative Contrast Positive
Candidate 11.4% 88.6% 0.0%
Group 93.7% 0.0% 6.3%
Overall 53.4% 27.9% 18.7%


1

Clinton Reaches Out to Spanish-Language Voters

Since September 7, Clinton has aired 3 different Spanish-language ads a total of 447 times; Trump has aired none. (Prior to September 7, Clinton hadn’t aired a Spanish language ad since late June). The bulk of Clinton’s Spanish-language advertising was seen in Las Vegas, but her campaign has also aired Spanish-language ads in Miami, Orlando and Tampa. Three pro-Clinton groups—El Super PAC Voto Latino, Latino Victory Fund and Priorities USA Action—have combined for another 397 Spanish-language ads in the past month (8/19 to 9/15). These ads aired in Denver, Las Vegas, Miami and Orlando.

1

Cycle-to-Date Spending Almost $600 Million in Presidential Race

Estimated spending on advertising in the presidential race, starting from January 1, 2015, is now at $578 million, with just over 700,000 total ad airings (Table 4). At the same time, spending on ads in US Senate races for the 2015-16 election cycle has topped $319 million, which has purchased over 388,000 ad airings. Spending on gubernatorial and U.S. House races have both topped $100 million. All told, over $1 billion have been spent on federal and gubernatorial races to date this cycle.


1

Table 4: Spending and Ad Counts in 2015-16 Election Cycle

  Est. Cost
(in Millions)
Airings
Figures are from January 1, 2015 to September 15, 2016.
Numbers include broadcast television (national network and national cable are included in presidential totals).
CITE SOURCE OF DATA AS: Kantar Media/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project.
President 578.1 700,452
Governor 101.8 275,914
US House 105.3 192,556
US Senate 319.6 388,004
Federal and Governor Total 1,104.8 1,556,926
Ballot Measures 65.5 89,346

1

Proportion of Outside Group Ads in 2016 Senate Races at All-Time High; Over Half of Republican Airings Sponsored by Groups

Total airings in Senate races in 2016 are down from 2012 levels, but the involvement of outside groups as a proportion of all airings is breaking records. Outside groups have sponsored over 45 percent of all Senate airings in the 2016 election cycle-to-date, and as shown in Figure 3, Republican groups have sponsored nearly 52 percent of all pro-Republican Senate airings (up from 49 percent in 2014, 40 percent in 2012 and 18 percent in 2010). Democratic groups have sponsored nearly 40 percent of pro-Democratic Senate airings, essentially the same proportion they aired in 2014, which is up dramatically from 26 percent in 2012 and 11 percent in 2010.


1

Figure 3: Percent of Senate Ads by Outside Groups, Cycle-to-Date

figure3_senategroups_3

1

2016 Senate Advertising in Last Month is Up Over 2012 Levels

Although 2016 cycle-to-date Senate advertising totals are lower than 2012, in the last month Senate advertising has outpaced 2012 totals for the comparable period by 6 percent overall (Table 5). Most of the increase has been driven by more Republican advertising (a 12 percent increase compared to 2012 totals). Candidate-sponsored advertising on both sides of the aisle is down dramatically, dropping by nearly 20 percent on the Democratic side and by a full third on the Republican side. Outside groups, meanwhile, have increased their number of airings, as have party-sponsored airings, which are up dramatically over 2012 totals.

1

“It seems clear that the party committees and especially pro-Republican groups are putting more energy into the race for the U.S. Senate than they are for the White House,” said Michael Franz, co-director or the Wesleyan Media Project. “As the presidential race tightens, however, it will be interesting to see if pro-Trump ads from either the RNC or conservative super PACs show up on television screens in competitive states.”


1

Table 5: Senate Ad Totals by Party and Sponsorship in 2012 and 2016

    Candidates Party/ Coordinated Groups Total
Figures are from August 19 to September 15 in each year.
Numbers include broadcast television, national network and national cable.
CITE SOURCE OF DATA AS: Kantar Media/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project.
2012 Pro-Democratic
Ads aired 36,980 5,524 13,023 56,062
Row % 66.0% 9.9% 23.2%
Est. Cost $16.6M $1.5M $6.0M
2012 Pro-Republican
Ads aired 30,757 3,994 19,568 54,543
Row % 56.4% 7.3% 35.9%
Est. Cost $14.4M $0.5M $11.4M
2016 Pro-Democratic
Ads aired 29,785 12,319 14,370 56,474
Row % 52.7% 21.8% 25.4%
Est. Cost $15.6M $2.1M $14.6M
% count chg -19.5% 123.0% 10.3% 0.7%
2016 Pro-Republican
Ads aired 20,526 16,584 23,905 61,015
Row % 33.6% 27.2% 39.2%
Est. Cost $12.2M $5.6M $19.4M
% count chg -33.3% 315.2% 22.2% 11.9%

1

Pennsylvania, Nevada Senate Races Top Charts

Races for the U.S. Senate have heated up over the past month, with races in Pennsylvania, Nevada, Indiana, Ohio and New Hampshire drawing the most attention (Table 6). Among the most competitive races, Democrats held ad advantages in Pennsylvania, Nevada, New Hampshire, Wisconsin and Colorado, while Republicans held huge advantages in Ohio, Missouri, Florida, and Indiana; Republicans have also held advantages in North Carolina and Arizona. Group spending has been especially important in the Pennsylvania race, where groups have accounted for almost 60 percent of advertising in the past month (over 6,400 ads from pro-Democratic groups and nearly 5,000 from pro-Republican ones).


1

Table 6: Ad Volume and Spending in Top US Senate Races (Since August 19)

State Airings Est Cost
(in Millions)
Dem
Adv.
Pro-Dem
Cand.
Pro-Dem
Group
Pro-Dem
Pty/
Coord
Pro-Rep
Cand.
Pro-Rep
Group
Pro-Rep
Pty/
Coord
KS 18 0.01 -18 0 0 0 18 0 0
PA 18,265 9.9 2,907 2,325 6,451 1,810 2,020 4,947 712
NV 13,871 6.5 901 2,717 3,372 1,297 1,231 2,653 2,601
IN 12,424 4.9 -1,516 5,389 65 0 686 2,319 3,965
OH 11,393 7.4 -4,523 2,166 728 541 3,168 3,527 1,263
NH 8,510 16.9 1,466 1,936 2,881 171 1,432 1,581 509
MO 8,092 3.7 -2,110 1,349 197 1,445 3,049 1,512 540
WI 7,815 3.1 2,141 4,845 133 0 1,398 1,439 0
FL 6,089 4.5 -2,375 1,398 459 0 381 1,604 2,247
NC 5,402 4.0 -1,106 2,064 84 0 948 1,502 804
AZ 4,556 3.4 -1,562 1,497 0 0 796 1,452 811
IL 2,920 1.0 172 1,546 0 0 6 1,368 0
LA 2,780 1.2 -2,760 10 0 0 2,769 1 0
IA 2,270 1.4 -414 928 0 0 1,342 0 0
CO 1,289 0.9 1,289 1,289 0 0 0 0 0
GA 710 0.4 -710 0 0 0 710 0 0
ID 327 0.05 -327 0 0 0 327 0 0
KY 315 0.2 235 275 0 0 40 0 0
AR 167 0.07 -167 0 0 0 167 0 0
VT 51 0.03 51 51 0 0 0 0 0
AK 38 0.006 -38 0 0 0 38 0 0


Figures are from August 19, 2016 to September 15, 2016.
Numbers include broadcast television, national network and national cable.
CITE SOURCE OF DATA AS: Kantar Media/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project.

1

Republican groups have also been advertising heavily in Ohio (over 3,500 airings, accounting for 44 percent of pro-Republican advertising), Nevada (over 2,600 airings and 41 percent of GOP ads on air), and Indiana (over 2,300 airings, a third of the Republican total). Seven other contests have seen roughly 1,500 spots each from pro-Republican groups in the last month. Democratic groups have been heavily involved in Nevada (nearly 3400 airings and 46 percent of pro-Democratic spots) and New Hampshire (nearly 2900 airings and 58 percent of pro-Democratic ads). More specific information on which groups were active in each race can be found in the appendix tables.

1

North Carolina Tops Governor Race Spending

Races for governor have also heated up in the past month, with North Carolina’s race between incumbent Pat McCrory and challenger Roy Cooper seeing the most ad airings (over 11,000) and the most spending (almost $6 million), as Table 7 shows. Democrat Cooper has benefited from about 1,600 more ads than Republican McCrory. Also seeing plentiful advertising in the past month were gubernatorial races in Montana and Missouri, each of which experienced over 9,000 ad airings.


1

Table 7: Ad Volume and Spending in Top Governor Races (Since August 19)

State Airings Est Cost
(in Millions)
Dem
Adv.
Pro-Dem
Cand.
Pro-Dem
Group
Pro-Dem
Pty/
Coord
Pro-Rep
Cand.
Pro-Rep
Group
Pro-Rep
Pty/
Coord
Figures are from August 19, 2016 to September 15, 2016.
Numbers include broadcast television, national network and national cable.
CITE SOURCE OF DATA AS: Kantar Media/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project.
NC 11,398 6.0 1,684 5,695 846 0 3,391 0 1,466
MT 9,918 1.3 -746 3,043 1,543 0 5,033 0 299
MO 9,048 3.8 2,550 5,799 0 0 3,249 0 0
IN 5,372 2.0 418 2,895 0 0 2,035 0 442
WV 3,420 0.9 1,016 890 1,328 0 1,202 0 0
NH 1,516 0.8 -524 496 0 0 1,020 0 0
VT 1,377 0.4 -785 76 220 0 761 320 0
OR 217 0.1 -129 44 0 0 173 0 0
UT 92 0.1 90 91 0 0 1 0 0


1

Table 8 shows the top ten US House races, ranked by the volume of ads since August 19. Montana’s at-large congressional seat has seen the most advertising, followed by Maine’s second congressional district race and Minnesota’s 8th congressional district. In 9 of the top 10 races (Florida’s second district is the exception), advertising on behalf of the Democratic candidate has been greater in volume than advertising on behalf of the Republican candidate.


1

Table 8: Ad Volume and Spending in Top House Races (Since August 19)

District Airings Est. Cost
(in Millions)
Dem Adv. Pro-Dem
Candidate
Pro-Dem
Group
Pro-Dem
Pty/Coord
Pro-Rep
Cand
Pro-Rep
Group
Pro-Rep
Pty/Coord
Figures are from August 19, 2016 to September 15, 2016.
Numbers include broadcast television, national network and national cable.
*Totals include third party advertising.
CITE SOURCE OF DATA AS: Kantar Media/GMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project
MT01 4,109 0.5 845 2,477 0 0 1,632 0 0
ME02 3,337 1.0 1,447 134 2,258 0 498 0 447
MN08 3,317 2.2 1,479 622 958 818 573 0 346
NY22 3,095* 0.6 2,262 1,185 1,077 0 0 0 0
FL18 2,288 1.0 114 1,201 0 0 744 130 213
FL02 1,941 0.6 -1,941 0 0 0 1,321 620 0
NY23 1,901 0.6 1,179 1,540 0 0 361 0 0
NE02 1,707 0.6 437 427 246 399 162 0 473
MI07 1,641 0.5 973 1,307 0 0 334 0 0
NY24 1,438 0.5 244 841 0 0 597 0 0

1

Priorities USA Action is Top Group Advertiser

Several groups have become involved in the presidential and congressional campaigns, as Table 9 shows. At the top of the list is Priorities USA Action, which has aired almost 45,000 ads in the presidential race in support of Hillary Clinton. Though they haven’t aired ads since February and March, respectively, Right to Rise USA, a super PAC that supported Jeb Bush, and Conservative Solutions PAC, which supported Marco Rubio, are still the second and third biggest advertisers this election cycle. Thirteen of the groups on this list have been active through the end of the summer, while the rest were involved only in the presidential nomination phase of this election cycle.

Table 9: Top 20 Group Advertisers in 2015-16 Election Cycle

Group Name Date of First Ad Date of Last Ad Ads Aired Pres. Ads Sen. Ads House Ads Org Type
Figures are from January 1, 2015, to September 15, 2016.
Numbers include broadcast television, national network and national cable.
CITE SOURCE OF DATA AS: Kantar Media/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project.
Priorities USA Action 18-May-16 15-Sep-16 44,826 44,826 0 0 superPAC
Right To Rise USA 15-Sep-15 23-Feb-16 35,558 35,558 0 0 superPAC
Conservative Solutions PAC 1-Dec-15 18-Mar-16 30,169 30,169 0 0 superPAC
Senate Majority PAC 12-Aug-15 15-Sep-16 26,351 0 26,351 0 superPAC
Freedom Partners Action Fund 17-Mar-16 15-Sep-16 22,340 0 22,340 0 superPAC
One Nation 8-Oct-15 6-Sep-16 20,216 0 20,216 0 501c4
U.S. Chamber of Commerce 30-Jun-15 8-Sep-16 16,681 0 14,488 2,193 501c6
Club for Growth Action 6-May-15 30-Aug-16 12,559 6,548 938 5,073 superPAC
Fighting for Ohio Fund 6-May-16 4-Sep-16 10,593 0 10,593 0 superPAC
Stand for Truth, Inc 13-Jan-16 15-Mar-16 10,330 10,330 0 0 superPAC
Women Vote 1-Dec-15 15-Sep-16 8,336 1,305 6,731 300 superPAC
American Future Fund 27-Jan-16 15-Sep-16 8,072 5,288 2,784 0 501c4
Rebuilding America Now PAC 8-Jun-16 15-Sep-16 7,799 7,799 0 0 superPAC
Our Principles PAC 26-Jan-16 3-May-16 7,000 7,000 0 0 superPAC
AFSCME People 29-Apr-16 15-Sep-16 5,584 0 5,584 0 PAC
New Day For America 9-Jul-15 6-May-16 5,394 5,394 0 0 superPAC
America Leads 20-Jul-15 9-Feb-16 5,377 5,377 0 0 superPAC
End Citizens United 3-Mar-16 15-Sep-16 5,256 0 4,444 812 PAC
NRA Political Victory Fund 30-Jun-16 15-Sep-16 5,184 4,514 670 0 PAC
Keep The Promise I 12-Sep-15 1-Mar-16 4,957 4,957 0 0 superPAC

1

Year of the Super PAC; More than a Third of Ads in Senate are Dark

Analysis done in conjunction with the Center for Responsive Politics reveals that full disclosure groups (mostly Super PACs) continue to dominate advertising in 2016, making up a majority of outside group advertising in federal races (Table 10). About 60 percent of group-sponsored advertising in Senate contests, more than three-quarters of group advertising in House races and over 90 percent of group ads in the presidential race were sponsored by groups that fully disclose their donors. However, “dark money” advertising, which is aired by 501cs that are not required to disclose their donors, comprises over a third of all outside group ads in Senate contests and nearly a quarter (22 percent) in House races cycle-to-date. A small percentage of ads were sponsored by groups that partially disclose; in many cases, this means that they disclose the groups that donate to them but those donors are themselves dark money groups.


1

Table 10: Group Advertisers and Donor Disclosure

    Ads Est. Cost
(in Millions)
% of total
Figures are from January 1, 2015, to September 15, 2016.
Numbers include broadcast television, national network and national cable.
CITE SOURCE OF DATA AS: Kantar Media/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project.
Group classification by the Center for Responsive Politics.
President Full 184,605 246.5 91.9%
Partial 1,635 1.2 0.8%
None 14,618 19.8 7.3%
200,858 267.5
Senate Full 104,603 95.2 59.6%
Partial 8,147 13.2 4.6%
None 62,838 80.1 35.8%
175,588 188.5
House Full 18,737 11.0 76.0%
Partial 521 0.3 2.1%
None 5,405 4.2 21.9%
24,663 15.5


1

“With the election in its final days and millions of dollars in secret money giving a boost to both sides in tight senate and house races, the question for voters and constituents is who their new representatives in Congress may feel beholden to once they’re in office,” said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics. “The public has very few avenues to track this kind of access and influence.”

1

Jobs Is Top Issue in Presidential Race

Clinton and Trump have both highlighted jobs and employment issues in their advertising with nearly 6 out of every 10 presidential ads mentioning those issues (nearly 67 percent of Clinton-sponsored ads and roughly 63 percent of Trump-sponsored ads). Pro-Clinton groups are attacking primarily on social and women’s issues along with foreign policy and immigration, while Pro-Trump groups are highlighting funding for the Clinton Foundation and its ties to big banks/corporations, with gun rights taking a distant third place.

1

Table 11: Top Issues in Presidential Race by Sponsor

Clinton Pro-Clinton Groups Trump Pro-Trump Groups
Figures are from August 19, 2016 to September 15, 2016.
CITE SOURCE OF DATA AS: Kantar Media/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project.
Jobs/Employment Women’s health Jobs/Employment Gov’t ethics/scandal
Trade/globalization Terrorism Minimum wage Wall Street
Energy/environment Iraq/War in Iraq Taxes Gun control

1

Appendix

Table A: US Senate Advertising by Race and Sponsor (since August 19)

Race Sponsor Type Party Airings Est. Cost
(in Ms)
Alaska MURKOWSKI, LISA Candidate Rep 38 0.006
Arkansas BOOZMAN, JOHN Candidate Rep 167 0.07
Arizona KIRKPATRICK, ANN Candidate Dem 1,497 1.1
Arizona MCCAIN, JOHN Candidate Rep 796 0.6
Arizona MCCAIN, JOHN & NATIONAL REPUBLICAN SENATORIAL COMMITTEE Candidate & Party Rep 811 0.4
Arizona ARIZONA GRASSROOTS ACTION PAC Group Rep 732 0.7
Arizona KELLIPAC Group Rep 403 0.4
Arizona NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR GUN RIGHTS PAC Group Rep 1 0.001
Arizona U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Group Rep 316 0.2
Colorado BENNET, MICHAEL Candidate Dem 1,289 0.9
Florida DE LA FUENTE, ROCKY Candidate Dem 94 0.04
Florida GRAYSON, ALAN Candidate Dem 425 0.09
Florida MURPHY, PATRICK Candidate Dem 879 0.8
Florida AFSCME PEOPLE Group Dem 125 0.2
Florida NARAL PRO-CHOICE AMERICA Group Dem 201 0.1
Florida SENATE MAJORITY PAC Group Dem 133 0.2
Florida RUBIO, MARCO Candidate Rep 381 0.2
Florida RUBIO, MARCO & NATIONAL REPUBLICAN SENATORIAL COMMITTEE Candidate & Party Rep 1,549 0.6
Florida AMERICAN FUTURE FUND Group Rep 1,014 1.2
Florida AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY Group Rep 175 0.2
Florida LIBRE INITIATIVE Group Rep 415 0.4
Florida NATIONAL REPUBLICAN SENATORIAL COMMITTEE PARTY Rep 698 0.5
Georgia ISAKSON, JOHNNY Candidate Rep 710 0.4
Iowa JUDGE, PATTY Candidate Dem 928 0.4
Iowa GRASSLEY, CHUCK Candidate Rep 1,342 0.9
Idaho CRAPO, MIKE Candidate Rep 327 0.05
Illinois DUCKWORTH, TAMMY Candidate Dem 1,546 0.7
Illinois KIRK, MARK Candidate Rep 6 0.006
Illinois INDEPENDENT VOICE FOR ILLINOIS PAC Group Rep 1,368 0.3
Indiana BAYH, EVAN Candidate Dem 5,389 2.1
Indiana SENATE MAJORITY PAC Group Dem 65 0.04
Indiana YOUNG, TODD Candidate Rep 686 0.4
Indiana YOUNG, TODD & NATIONAL REPUBLICAN SENATORIAL COMMITTEE Candidate & Party Rep 3,036 0.5
Indiana SENATE LEADERSHIP FUND Group Rep 791 0.5
Indiana U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Group Rep 1,528 1.1
Indiana NATIONAL REPUBLICAN SENATORIAL COMMITTEE Party Rep 929 0.3
Kansas MORAN, JERRY Candidate Rep 18 0.01
Kentucky GRAY, JIM Candidate Dem 275 0.2
Kentucky PAUL, RAND Candidate Rep 40 0.02
Louisiana PELLERIN, JOSH Candidate Dem 10 0.005
Louisiana BOUSTANY, CHARLES Candidate Rep 814 0.6
Louisiana FLEMING, JOHN Candidate Rep 1,955 0.7
Louisiana ESA FUND Group Rep 1 0.005
Missouri KANDER, JASON Candidate Dem 1,349 0.6
Missouri KANDER, JASON & DEMOCRATIC SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE Candidate & Party Dem 1,445 0.4
Missouri END CITIZENS UNITED Group Dem 197 0.2
Missouri BLUNT, ROY Candidate Rep 3,049 1.2
Missouri BLUNT, ROY & NATIONAL REPUBLICAN SENATORIAL COMMITTEE Candidate & Party Rep 540 0.2
Missouri HEARTLAND RESURGENCE Group Rep 143 0.04
Missouri NRA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND Group Rep 486 0.3
Missouri ONE NATION Group Rep 547 0.5
Missouri SENATE LEADERSHIP FUND Group Rep 336 0.3
North Carolina ROSS, DEBORAH Candidate Dem 2,064 1.1
North Carolina DEMOCRACY FOR AMERICA Group Dem 84 0.05
North Carolina BURR, RICHARD Candidate Rep 948 0.8
North Carolina BURR, RICHARD & NATIONAL REPUBLICAN SENATORIAL COMMITTEE Candidate & Party Rep 804 0.2
North Carolina NRA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND Group Rep 184 0.2
North Carolina ONE NATION Group Rep 957 1.4
North Carolina SENATE LEADERSHIP FUND Group Rep 361 0.3
New Hampshire HASSAN, MAGGIE Candidate Dem 1,936 1.6
New Hampshire AFSCME PEOPLE Group Dem 54 0.3
New Hampshire END CITIZENS UNITED Group Dem 266 0.6
New Hampshire INDEPENDENCE USA PAC Group Dem 780 2.0
New Hampshire MAJORITY FORWARD Group Dem 616 2.1
New Hampshire NEA ADVOCACY FUND Group Dem 402 1.6
New Hampshire PLANNED PARENTHOOD VOTES Group Dem 278 0.7
New Hampshire SENATE MAJORITY PAC Group Dem 367 0.9
New Hampshire WOMEN VOTE Group Dem 118 0.4
New Hampshire DEMOCRATIC SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE Party Dem 171 0.04
New Hampshire AYOTTE, KELLY Candidate Rep 1,432 1.3
New Hampshire GRANITE STATE SOLUTIONS Group Rep 1,536 4.6
New Hampshire SECURITY IS STRENGTH PAC Group Rep 45 0.2
New Hampshire NATIONAL REPUBLICAN SENATORIAL COMMITTEE Party Rep 509 0.4
Nevada MASTO, CATHERINE CORTEZ Candidate Dem 2,717 1.7
Nevada AFSCME PEOPLE Group Dem 14 0.005
Nevada END CITIZENS UNITED Group Dem 1,362 0.5
Nevada LCV VICTORY FUND Group Dem 729 0.4
Nevada SENATE MAJORITY PAC Group Dem 1,267 0.6
Nevada DEMOCRATIC SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE Party Dem 1,297 0.4
Nevada HECK, JOE Candidate Rep 1,231 1.0
Nevada HECK, JOE & NATIONAL REPUBLICAN SENATORIAL COMMITTEE Candidate & Party Rep 272 0.09
Nevada FREEDOM PARTNERS ACTION FUND Group Rep 2,118 0.9
Nevada ONE NATION Group Rep 195 0.05
Nevada SENATE LEADERSHIP FUND Group Rep 340 0.1
Nevada NATIONAL REPUBLICAN SENATORIAL COMMITTEE Party Rep 2,329 0.8
Ohio STRICKLAND, TED Candidate Dem 2,166 1.6
Ohio STRICKLAND, TED & DEMOCRATIC SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE Candidate & Party Dem 541 0.3
Ohio AFSCME Group Dem 728 0.5
Ohio PORTMAN, ROB Candidate Rep 3,168 2.2
Ohio PORTMAN, ROB & NATIONAL REPUBLICAN SENATORIAL COMMITTEE Candidate & Party Rep 43 0.03
Ohio FIGHTING FOR OHIO FUND Group Rep 1,939 0.8
Ohio FREEDOM PARTNERS ACTION FUND Group Rep 1,215 0.9
Ohio U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Group Rep 373 0.3
Ohio NATIONAL REPUBLICAN SENATORIAL COMMITTEE Party Rep 1,220 0.7
Pennsylvania MCGINTY, KATIE Candidate Dem 2,325 1.2
Pennsylvania MCGINTY, KATIE & DEMOCRATIC SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE Candidate & Party Dem 1,146 0.4
Pennsylvania AFSCME PEOPLE Group Dem 390 0.2
Pennsylvania END CITIZENS UNITED Group Dem 1,047 0.5
Pennsylvania LCV VICTORY FUND Group Dem 635 0.4
Pennsylvania PLANNED PARENTHOOD VOTES Group Dem 497 0.2
Pennsylvania SENATE MAJORITY PAC Group Dem 3,882 1.7
Pennsylvania DEMOCRATIC SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE Party Dem 664 0.5
Pennsylvania TOOMEY, PAT Candidate Rep 2,020 1.3
Pennsylvania AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY Group Rep 280 0.1
Pennsylvania FREEDOM PARTNERS ACTION FUND Group Rep 3,146 1.2
Pennsylvania INDEPENDENCE USA PAC Group Rep 1,046 0.9
Pennsylvania ONE NATION Group Rep 475 0.3
Pennsylvania NATIONAL REPUBLICAN SENATORIAL COMMITTEE Party Rep 712 0.7
Vermont LEAHY, PATRICK Candidate Dem 51 0.03
Wisconsin FEINGOLD, RUSS Candidate Dem 4,845 1.5
Wisconsin ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE ACTION FUND Group Dem 133 0.1
Wisconsin JOHNSON, RON Candidate Rep 1,398 0.6
Wisconsin FREEDOM PARTNERS ACTION FUND Group Rep 989 0.5
Wisconsin LET AMERICA WORK Group Rep 450 0.4


Figures are from August 19, 2016 to September 15, 2016. Numbers include broadcast television, national network and national cable.
CITE SOURCE OF DATA AS: Kantar Media/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project.
1

Table B: US House Advertising by Race and Sponsor (since August 19)

State Race Sponsor Type Party Airings Est. Cost (in Ms)
AK AK01 LINDBECK, STEVE Candidate Dem 181 26,020
AZ AZ01 DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSIONAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE Party Dem 547 385,380
AZ AZ01 ROGERS, WENDY Candidate Rep 119 50,910
AZ AZ02 HEINZ, MATT Candidate Dem 837 266,650
AZ AZ02 MCSALLY, MARTHA Candidate Rep 401 268,940
AZ AZ05 JONES, CHRISTINE Candidate Rep 735 481,020
AZ AZ05 STAPLEY, DON Candidate Rep 26 25,310
AZ AZ09 CENTER FORWARD Group Dem 316 262,830
CA CA07 BERA, AMI Candidate Dem 459 221,430
CA CA20 LUCIUS, CASEY Candidate Rep 221 56,420
CA CA24 CARBAJAL, SALUD Candidate Dem 107 14,070
CA CA24 NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE Party Rep 582 66,300
CA CA36 RUIZ, RAUL Candidate Dem 598 104,280
CA CA52 PETERS, SCOTT Candidate Dem 66 39,640
CA CA52 CENTER FORWARD Group Dem 343 221,040
CO CO06 CARROLL, MORGAN Candidate Dem 314 380,630
CO CO06 COFFMAN, MIKE Candidate Rep 16 45,610
DE DE01 BARNEY, SEAN Candidate Dem 244 204,630
DE DE01 BLUNT ROCHESTER, LISA Candidate Dem 245 303,430
DE DE01 VOTE VETS ACTION FUND Group Dem 60 46,830
FL FL01 EVERS, GREG Candidate Rep 33 11,250
FL FL01 GAETZ, MATT Candidate Rep 421 135,550
FL FL01 ZUMWALT, JAMES Candidate Rep 29 14,670
FL FL01 NORTH FLORIDA NEIGHBORS Group Rep 43 26,680
FL FL02 DUNN, NEAL Candidate Rep 525 170,180
FL FL02 SUKHIA, KEN Candidate Rep 134 32,870
FL FL02 THOMAS, MARY Candidate Rep 662 108,680
FL FL02 CLUB FOR GROWTH ACTION Group Rep 207 107,340
FL FL02 ESA FUND Group Rep 236 125,990
FL FL02 SENATE CONSERVATIVES ACTION Group Rep 177 81,000
FL FL04 MALIN, ED Candidate Rep 6 660
FL FL04 MCCLURE, BILL Candidate Rep 104 30,900
FL FL04 RAY, LAKE Candidate Rep 12 6,110
FL FL04 RUTHERFORD, JOHN Candidate Rep 40 16,350
FL FL04 TANZLER, HANS Candidate Rep 328 75,370
FL FL04 CONSERVATIVES UNITED Group Rep 21 6,210
FL FL05 LAWSON, AL Candidate Dem 30 9,210
FL FL06 DESANTIS, RON Candidate Rep 267 142,440
FL FL07 MURPHY, STEPHANIE & DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSIONAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE Cand. & Party Dem 77 41,190
FL FL09 GRAYSON, DENA Candidate Dem 199 92,910
FL FL10 DEMINGS, VAL Candidate Dem 116 139,300
FL FL10 POE, BOB Candidate Dem 1 1,070
FL FL10 INDEPENDENCE USA PAC Group Dem 320 333,790
FL FL13 JOLLY, DAVID Candidate Rep 23 17,980
FL FL18 CHANE, JONATHAN Candidate Dem 74 19,790
FL FL18 PERKINS, RANDY Candidate Dem 1,127 456,170
FL FL18 DOMINO, CARL Candidate Rep 135 57,500
FL FL18 FREEMAN, MARK Candidate Rep 235 88,380
FL FL18 KOZELL, RICK Candidate Rep 47 20,440
FL FL18 MAST, BRIAN Candidate Rep 137 67,400
FL FL18 NEGRON, REBECCA Candidate Rep 190 85,590
FL FL18 MAST, BRIAN & NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE Cand. & Party Rep 3 770
FL FL18 CONSERVATIVE CONGRESS NOW Group Rep 130 79,880
FL FL18 NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE Party Rep 210 86,990
FL FL19 BONGINO, DAN Candidate Rep 31 18,220
FL FL19 GOSS, CHAUNCEY Candidate Rep 28 20,280
FL FL19 ROONEY, FRANCIS Candidate Rep 1,311 532,030
FL FL23 CANOVA, TIM Candidate Dem 341 319,860
FL FL23 WASSERMAN-SCHULTZ, DEBBIE Candidate Dem 326 274,130
FL FL25 EDF ACTION Group Rep 58 79,780
FL FL26 TADDEO, ANNETTE Candidate Dem 83 72,760
FL FL26 CURBELO, CARLOS Candidate Rep 85 152,670
FL FL26 EDF ACTION Group Rep 109 108,380
FL FL27 ROS-LEHTINEN, ILEANA Candidate Rep 253 311,620
IA IA01 VERNON, MONICA Candidate Dem 496 164,750
IA IA01 HOUSE MAJORITY PAC Group Dem 118 33,240
IA IA01 BLUM, ROD Candidate Rep 435 166,660
IA IA01 NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE Party Rep 67 11,510
IA IA03 DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSIONAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE Candidate Dem 93 33,370
IA IA03 MOWRER, JIM Candidate Dem 310 199,850
IA IA03 YOUNG, DAVID Candidate Rep 473 214,660
IL IL10 SCHNEIDER, BRAD Candidate Dem 95 215,710
IL IL10 DOLD, ROBERT Candidate Rep 20 71,920
IL IL12 BARICEVIC, CJ Candidate Dem 322 161,000
IL IL12 BOST, MIKE Candidate Rep 196 162,010
IN IN02 COLEMAN, LYNN Candidate Dem 174 53,600
IN IN02 WALORSKI, JACKIE Candidate Rep 342 137,430
IN IN09 HOLLINGSWORTH, TREY Candidate Rep 168 96,090
KS KS03 YODER, KEVIN Candidate Rep 34 23,710
KY KY06 BARR, ANDY Candidate Rep 275 101,660
LA LA02 AMERICAN CHEMISTRY COUNCIL & NORTH AMERICA’S BUILDING TRADES UNIONS Group Dem 223 140,240
LA LA03 ELLISON, GREG Candidate Rep 175 88,870
LA LA04 JONES, MARSHALL Candidate Dem 2 2,250
LA LA04 BAUCUM, TREY Candidate Rep 105 49,770
LA LA04 JENKINS, OLIVER Candidate Rep 61 28,270
ME ME02 CAIN, EMILY Candidate Dem 134 37,940
ME ME02 END CITIZENS UNITED Group Dem 812 181,440
ME ME02 HOUSE MAJORITY PAC Group Dem 1,446 476,700
ME ME02 POLIQUIN, BRUCE Candidate Rep 498 202,380
ME ME02 NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE Party Rep 447 89,140
MI MI01 NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE Party Rep 148 26,290
MI MI07 DRISKELL, GRETCHEN Candidate Dem 1,307 460,530
MI MI07 WALBERG, TIM Candidate Rep 334 72,550
N/A MI07 WALBERG, TIM Candidate Rep 11 3,350
MN MN02 CRAIG, ANGIE Candidate Dem 991 887,030
MN MN03 BONOFF, TERRI Candidate Dem 72 85,240
MN MN03 DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSIONAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE Party Dem 518 340,610
MN MN03 PAULSEN, ERIK Candidate Rep 210 256,860
MN MN08 NOLAN, RICK Candidate Dem 622 391,810
MN MN08 HOUSE MAJORITY PAC Group Dem 958 646,820
MN MN08 DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSIONAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE Party Dem 818 357,720
MN MN08 MILLS, STEWART Candidate Rep 573 446,790
MN MN08 NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE Party Rep 346 327,660
MT MT01 JUNEAU, DENISE Candidate Dem 2,477 312,180
MT MT01 ZINKE, RYAN Candidate Rep 1,632 154,180
NE NE02 ASHFORD, BRAD Candidate Dem 427 142,800
NE NE02 CENTER FORWARD Group Dem 164 61,010
NE NE02 PAC OF CREDIT UNION NATIONAL ASSOCIATION Group Dem 82 55,040
NE NE02 DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSIONAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE Party Dem 399 123,470
NE NE02 BACON, DON Candidate Rep 162 51,120
NE NE02 NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE Party Rep 473 145,990
NH NH01 ASHOOH, RICH Candidate Rep 74 41,810
NH NH02 KUSTER, ANN Candidate Dem 63 27,550
NJ NJ05 GARRETT, SCOTT Candidate Rep 14 59,600
NV NV03 DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSIONAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE Party Dem 376 180,280
NV NV03 NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE & TARKANIAN, DANNY Cand. & Party Rep 261 134,750
NV NV04 KIHUEN, RUBEN & DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSIONAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE Cand. & Party Dem 49 27,460
NV NV04 HARDY, CRESENT Candidate Rep 1 1,200
NV NV04 HARDY, CRESENT & NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE Cand. & Party Rep 52 30,330
NV NV04 NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE Party Rep 374 211,100
NY NY01 THRONE-HOLST, ANNA Candidate Dem 54 95,520
NY NY19 TEACHOUT, ZEPHYR Candidate Dem 97 31,200
NY NY21 DERRICK, MIKE Candidate Dem 524 146,950
NY NY21 STEFANIK, ELISE Candidate Rep 117 32,060
NY NY22 MYERS, KIM Candidate Dem 1,185 268,970
NY NY22 HOUSE MAJORITY PAC Group Dem 1,077 239,750
NY NY22 BABINEC, MARTIN Candidate OTHER 833 121,900
NY NY23 PLUMB, JOHN Candidate Dem 1,540 426,180
NY NY23 REED, TOM Candidate Rep 361 157,120
NY NY24 DEACON, COLLEEN Candidate Dem 841 210,170
NY NY24 KATKO, JOHN Candidate Rep 597 275,720
NY NY25 SLAUGHTER, LOUISE Candidate Dem 256 54,560
OH OH15 STIVERS, STEVE Candidate Rep 3 1,610
OK OK05 GUILD, TOM Candidate Dem 12 13,720
OR OR05 AMERICAN CHEMISTRY COUNCIL & NORTH AMERICA’S BUILDING TRADES UNIONS Group Dem 286 156,280
PA PA08 SANTARSIERO, STEVE Candidate Dem 189 207,320
TX TX23 GALLEGO, PETE Candidate Dem 263 275,700
TX TX23 DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSIONAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE Party Dem 185 105,190
TX TX23 HURD, WILL Candidate Rep 428 394,940
UT UT04 OWENS, DOUG Candidate Dem 613 240,340
UT UT04 LOVE, MIA Candidate Rep 470 233,470
VA VA05 DITTMAR, JANE Candidate Dem 656 88,420
VA VA10 BENNETT, LUANN Candidate Dem 464 898,000
WA WA05 RODGERS, CATHY Candidate Rep 1 340
WI WI08 NELSON, TOM Candidate Dem 606 177,710
WI WI08 GALLAGHER, MIKE Candidate Rep 392 101,980
WI WI08 LASEE, FRANK Candidate Rep 16 990


Figures are from August 19, 2016 to September 15, 2016. Numbers include broadcast television, national network and national cable.
CITE SOURCE OF DATA AS: Kantar Media/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project.

1

About This Report

Data reported here do not cover local cable buys, only broadcast television, national network and national cable buys. We include all ads that mention individuals running for office, and therefore sums may include issue advocacy advertising. All cost estimates are precisely that: estimates. Disclosure categorization information on outside groups comes from the Center for Responsive Politics.

The Wesleyan Media Project provides real-time tracking and analysis of all political television advertising in an effort to increase transparency in elections. Housed in Wesleyan’s Quantitative Analysis Center – part of the Allbritton Center for the Study of Public Life – the Wesleyan Media Project is the successor to the Wisconsin Advertising Project, which disbanded in 2009. It is directed by Erika Franklin Fowler, associate professor of government at Wesleyan University, Michael M. Franz, associate professor of government at Bowdoin College and Travis N. Ridout, professor of political science at Washington State University. WMP staff include Laura Baum (Project Manager), Dolly Haddad (Project Coordinator) and Matthew Motta (Research Associate).


The Wesleyan Media Project
is supported by grants from The John S. and James L. Knight Foundation and Wesleyan University. Data provided by Kantar Media/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project using Academiclip, a web-based coding tool. The Wesleyan Media Project is partnering this year with both the Center for Responsive Politics, to provide added information on outside group disclosure, and Ace Metrix, to assess ad effectiveness.

Periodic releases of data will be posted on the project’s website and dispersed via Twitter @wesmediaproject.
1
For more information contact:
Heather Tolley-Bauer, htolleybauer@wesleyan.edu, (860) 398-9018

1
About Wesleyan University
Wesleyan University, in Middletown, Conn., is known for the excellence of its academic and co-curricular programs. With more than 2,900 undergraduates and 200 graduate students, Wesleyan is dedicated to providing a liberal arts education characterized by boldness, rigor and practical idealism. For more, visit www.wesleyan.edu.

About the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation
Knight Foundation supports transformational ideas that promote quality journalism, advance media innovation, engage communities and foster the arts. We believe that democracy thrives when people and communities are informed and engaged. For more, visit www.knightfoundation.org.

About the Center for Responsive Politics
The Center for Responsive Politics is the nation’s premier research group tracking money in U.S. politics and its effect on elections and public policy. Nonpartisan, independent and nonprofit, the organization aims to create a more educated voter, an involved citizenry and a more transparent and responsive government. CRP’s award-winning website, OpenSecrets.org, is the most comprehensive resource available anywhere for federal campaign contribution and lobbying data and analysis.
1


Reblogged from: Wesleyan Photo. (Go to the original post…)

A Wes Skater sighting near North College, Sept. 20 at Wesleyan University. 

Reblogged from: ENGAGE – Wesleyan University. (Go to the original post…)

Dic Wheeler ’81, Executive Director of ARTFARM, has several great opportunities to share for Wesleyan students interested in theater and circus performance. ARTFARM is a non-profit organization which cultivates high-quality theater with a commitment to Simple Living, Environmental Responsibility and Social Justice. They are looking for student volunteers (and the first position is work-study through the Oddfellows Playhouse) for this school year :

Work-study or volunteer position:wesleyan assistant flyer.0916 (1)

Teaching Assistants and Coaches for the CIRCOPHONY Circus Training and Performance Program. Tuesday and Thursday evenings, 6:30 – 9 pm. This is a circus-training program for teenagers aged 12-19. They are looking for anyone with circus performance experience to volunteer (or get paid if work-study eligible) for one or both classes each week through the 2016-2017 school year. Classes are held at Oddfellows, 128 Washington Street. Reliability is essential.

Volunteer positions:

Teaching Assistants for School Residency programs at Woodrow Wilson and Keigwin Middle Schools. Tuesday & Thursday afternoons, 4 – 5 pm, starting October 18. Assist ARTFARM Teaching Artists in Circus Arts Enrichment programs at both Middletown Public Middle Schools. Circus skills not required, just enthusiasm for teaching and being with middle schoolers doing fun and challenging physical activities. 
 
ARTFARM Grant Writing/Development Internship. For someone interested in Arts Administration, Writing & Development. Work with a small local arts non-profit to assist in raising funds to “cultivate high-quality theater with a commitment to simple living, environmental sustainability and social justice.”  Skills acquired or developed may include writing, budgeting, impact measurement, Member & Board development, and event planning. 2 – 4 hours per week.
 
ARTFARM Costume/Prop Shop Coordinator. For an organized person who loves the accoutrements of theater and circus. Work with the Artistic Director to keep ARTFARM’s collections of costumes, props and equipment well-organized and accessible. Update and upkeep systems for storage and organization; manage loans and rentals; provide regular loving attention to a barn full of stuff for a few hours a week.
 
If you are interested in any of the positions, please contact Dic Wheeler (860-346-4390 or at dic@art-farm.org)

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Log in