Spending on U.S. Elections Slides for First Time in Recent Political History

For the first time in recent political history, spending on U.S. elections is falling. Technology has as much to do with it as Republican Donald Trump’s unconventional campaign.

An analysis of campaign-finance reports shows that less money has been spent on the 2016 races for the White House, House and Senate than during the same period in the 2012 campaign season. That reverses a longstanding trend in which every presidential election cycle has set a new record for spending.

Through September, campaigns, parties and outside groups spent a total of $3.2 billion on the races for president, House and Senate. That is a drop of $210 million from the same period in 2012, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of data provided by the nonpartisan Campaign Finance Institute.

The sharpest decline has been in the presidential election. Mr. Trump, who trails Democrat Hillary Clinton in national polls, spent about $190 million through September, $110 million less than his Republican predecessor, Mitt Romney, spent in the comparable time period in 2012. His allied super PACs also have spent far less than the pro-Romney groups—$33.8 million through September, about a third of what Mr. Romney’s allied groups had spent in that time period.

READ MORE ON CAPITAL JOURNAL

Capital Journal is WSJ.com’s home for politics, policy and national security news.

Republicans Rode Waves of Populism Until It Crashed the Party
Florida Once Again Draws Focus as a Battleground State in 2016 Race
Clinton Confidants Privately Questioned Handling of Email Controversy
Clinton Expands Lead Among Younger Voters
“The fact is that Trump doesn’t need to raise or spend money,” said Jan Baran, a campaign-finance lawyer with Wiley Rein LLP. “Ad spending is down due to Donald Trump not spending on traditional radio and television ads like John McCain and Mitt Romney, because he gets free media on cable, and he’s a guy who tweets for free.”

Mr. Baran said that social media like Facebook and Twitter are “reducing the cost of broad-scale public penetration of messages by the presidential candidates.”

In the 2016 elections, presidential and congressional candidates have turned to the internet to reach voters in a far less expensive way than via traditional television advertising. By using web advertisements, social media and Twitter, candidates can get their campaign messages to voters at a far lower cost to the campaign.

Mr. Trump has shown a particular savvy in using Twitter to broadcast messages that are then amplified by cable news shows that reinforce his message.

In the final presidential debate, Mr. Trump boasted about his use of social media. “Between Facebook and Twitter, I have almost 25 million people. It’s a very effective way of communication,” he said. “I’m not unproud of it, to be honest with you.”

Draw the 2016 Electoral College Map

Perhaps more striking, though, is that Mrs. Clinton has also spent less than President Barack Obama did in 2012. Her campaign cut checks for $400.5 million through September, about 26% less than what Mr. Obama had spent in that period.

The Clinton and Trump campaigns didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Mrs. Clinton’s advisers have said they used data to spend their ad dollars more efficiently. During the long-fought primary against Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, the campaign calculated the cost of ads “per flippable delegate” through an algorithm first reported by Politico. Through September, Mrs. Clinton spent $207 million on advertising, to Mr. Obama’s $264 million, according to FEC records.

Another reason she was able to spend less was because her allied super PAC, Priorities USA Action, spent $136 million through September, more than three times as much as the super PAC supporting Mr. Obama spent in the same period in 2012.

The Clinton super PAC’s ramped-up activity mirrors a broader trend of outside spending on the rise in this election. Outside groups have nearly doubled their spending on candidate advocacy, paying $666 million through September—compared with $369 million in 2012.

The torrent of super PAC cash follows the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling that opened the door to unlimited contributions from corporations, unions and individuals into these outside groups. In the presidential race alone, two dozen billionaires have spent $88 million bankrolling super PACs.

House and Senate candidates spent less this cycle than in 2012, paying out $1.1 billion through September—compared with $1.3 billion in 2012.

In tight Senate races, the burden of spending has shifted to outside groups from campaigns since 2012. The most expensive Senate race of the cycle so far has been in Pennsylvania, where general-election candidates have collectively spent $26 million, according to a Center for Responsive Politics analysis of the most recent Federal Election Commission data. Outside groups have spent another $87 million on the race.

In 2012, by contrast, one of the most expensive Senate races—in Virginia—saw general-election candidates spend $32 million, with another $52 million spent by outside groups.

Spending by national parties has fallen, too, dropping by about $45 million to $825 million this year. That decline follows a provision in a 2014 spending bill under which party committees can raise about 10 times as much from individual donors as they could in 2012.

The Campaign Finance Institute’s data focuses on spending by general-election candidates and their super PACs, and excludes money spent by primary candidates and their allied groups. It includes spending on candidate advocacy by outside groups, but doesn’t include other types of spending by those groups, such as on paying staff.

In the presidential race, driving the drop in Mr. Trump’s spending has been his reliance on media strategies other than paying for TV advertising. Kantar Media/CMAG, a top ad-tracking agency, last month forecast that political spending on local broadcast TV in 2016 would reach $2.8 billion—about $300 million less than what was spent in 2012, and $500 million less than the agency’s initial estimate for 2016.

In 2012, Mr. Romney and his allied super PACs spent $550 million on political ads in the general election. Mr. Trump and his backers through September spent $78 million.

Mrs. Clinton also has spent less than Mr. Obama on ads. Through the end of September, she and her allies spent $325 million on TV ads, compared with Mr. Obama’s $500 million over the course of the 2012 election.

“She probably figures, ‘Why do I have to spend more?’ ” said Steven Passwaiter, vice president of Kantar’s political ad monitoring unit, at a conference last month hosted by an association of TV broadcasters.