The Planned Parenthood Action Fund (PPAF) was more effective in spending its money and getting positive results than any other political action group in the 2012 election. "Over 98 percent of its spending was in races that ended in the desired result, according to an analysis by the Sunlight Foundation" (Washington Post).
One might conclude that they were effective because the election swung to the Democrats in many key races and that Planned Parenthood money was simply chasing winners. Sarah Kliff of The Washington Post, who analyzed how and why PPAF used its money and resources, instead concludes that Planned Parenthood actually moved the meter in races, one example being John Tester's unexpected reelection to the U.S. Senate from Montana.
If you accept Kliff's analysis, one of the reasons why there was such a tremendous gender gap this election cycle is that PPAF saw that reproductive politics issues were registering as important for women (particularly after repeated conservative gaffes). They then spent money to a) work up carefully framed talking points and b) amplify those messages through targeted advertising. All of the pundits who were amazed that so many speakers at the Democratic convention were talking about reproductive rights missed what Planned Parenthood saw and was doing.
The article and the Sunlight Foundation report is a fascinating look into how effectively money can be spent-- especially in contrast to the millions of dollars wasted by supposed gurus like Karl Rove, whose own political action group spent in the neighborhood of $100 million with almost nothing to show for it.
Links:
Article in The Washington Post (December 5, 2012): Inside Planned Parenthood's campaign strategy
Sunlight Foundation analysis (last accessed December 5, 2012): Planned Parenthood Votes
One might conclude that they were effective because the election swung to the Democrats in many key races and that Planned Parenthood money was simply chasing winners. Sarah Kliff of The Washington Post, who analyzed how and why PPAF used its money and resources, instead concludes that Planned Parenthood actually moved the meter in races, one example being John Tester's unexpected reelection to the U.S. Senate from Montana.
If you accept Kliff's analysis, one of the reasons why there was such a tremendous gender gap this election cycle is that PPAF saw that reproductive politics issues were registering as important for women (particularly after repeated conservative gaffes). They then spent money to a) work up carefully framed talking points and b) amplify those messages through targeted advertising. All of the pundits who were amazed that so many speakers at the Democratic convention were talking about reproductive rights missed what Planned Parenthood saw and was doing.
The article and the Sunlight Foundation report is a fascinating look into how effectively money can be spent-- especially in contrast to the millions of dollars wasted by supposed gurus like Karl Rove, whose own political action group spent in the neighborhood of $100 million with almost nothing to show for it.
Links:
Article in The Washington Post (December 5, 2012): Inside Planned Parenthood's campaign strategy
Sunlight Foundation analysis (last accessed December 5, 2012): Planned Parenthood Votes
Comments