On Tuesday, eight-term Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-IL), one of the most conservative Democrats in the House of Representatives, was defeated in the primary for his re-election campaign by progressive challenger Marie Newman. With 99.2% of precincts reporting, Newman currently leads Lipinski by a narrow 47-45% margin. In a news conference streamed live Wednesday on Facebook, Lipinski conceded, while claiming that the issue of abortion "loomed over the race and fueled big outside money invested on Newman’s side."
Lipinski's claim here stems from the fact that he is one of the last pro-life Democrats remaining in Congress, something that Newman made a central issue throughout the campaign. His charge that pro-choice groups spent "big outside money" to help elect Newman does have some truth to it. Planned Parenthood spent $8,583 on pro-Newman ads, EMILY's List spent $397,781 on ads in favor of Newman, in addition to $596,672 on ads against Lipinski, while NARAL Pro-Choice America spent $211,468 on ads for Newman.
Despite Lipinski being right in his claim, it is somewhat hypocritical on his part, as several advocacy groups and organizations have paid for ads in his favor, including the pro-life group Susan B. Anthony List, which spent $9,912 on such. Overall, this election cycle, outside money accounted for $344,968 in pro-Lipinski ads. While, admittedly, this is less outside money than spent on pro-Newman ads, it doesn't necessarily improve Lipinski's case that a super PAC supporting him spent outside money on ads in his favor last time around. United For Progress, Inc. spent $931,664 on anti-Newman ads during the 2018 election cycle, when Newman first challenged Lipinski and narrowly lost the primary, as well as $44,230 on ads in favor of him.
Overall, while there is no doubt outside spending had an impact on the primary election, Lipinski's claim that it was "big outside money" from pro-choice organizations that contributed to his defeat, while not false, may make some question why he failed to say anything about the outside money that had been spent in his favor, as well as against his opponent, including from a super PAC he is affiliated with. Regardless, however, the significant amount of outside money spent on both sides does suggest the need for campaign finance reform, as this is yet another example of the advantage the system gives to the organizations with the money and power to influence voters.
Comments