If you’re getting your information about the US midterms only from the BBC you are no doubt aware that Republicans are outspending the Democrats by millions of dollars. Yesterday’s report by Katty Kay on campaign funding focused almost entirely on Republican spending (there’s a very brief mention about union support for Democrats, but the thrust of the piece is clear – Republicans and their supporters are trying to buy the election. See short version here, longer version here). When Matt Frei blogged about the subject he name-checked only Republican candidates.
Hang on though, what’s this? Politico, 26 October:
To hear top Democrats tell it, the party is being wildly outgunned this year in the fight for campaign cash as Republicans rely on outside groups to funnel money to GOP contenders.
But the numbers tell a different story.
It’s true that conservative third-party groups are outspending their Democratic rivals. But the Democrats still have a sizable cash advantage in their party committees – making this year’s elections a lot more of a fair fight than Vice President Joe Biden and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi let on.
And this? New York Times, 26 October:
Lost in all of the attention paid to the heavy spending by Republican-oriented independent groups in this year’s midterm elections is that Democratic candidates have generally wielded a significant head-to-head financial advantage over their Republican opponents in individual competitive races.
The Times article also points out that Democrat-supporting third party groups have now begun splashing the cash around big-time:
Last week, for example, [America’s Families First Action Fund] spent $362,000 on a television ad attacking Steve Southerland, the Republican challenger to Representative Allen Boyd, Democrat of Florida.
None of this fits the BBC’s narrative, therefore it is ignored. They’re not going to let the facts get in the way of their relentless anti-Republican propaganda.
Update. Check out Matt Frei’s chat with Jimmy Carter. Not a single assertion by Carter is challenged. It’s like one of those obsequious 1950s political interviews (“Is there anything you’d like to say to the British people, Minister?”). Pathetic.