U.S. House and U.S. Senate advertising spending approaches $200M in last five weeks, $367M total since Jan 1

Influx of Spending Indicates House is the True Battleground;

IGs Spending Over $65 Million in Federal & Gov Races

(MIDDLETOWN, CT) Oct. 13, 2010 – An estimated $198M has been spent on advertising in U.S. Senate and U.S. House races in the five weeks between 9/1 and 10/7.  With September as the traditional start to the general election season, the 75 percent increase in spending (from $113M during the same period in 2008) includes an 84 percent spending increase in U.S. Senate races and a 65 percent increase in U.S. House ads.

***View entire release as pdf, by clicking here.
***To view tables, click for pdf or XML formats (with additional data — be sure to download not open from the webpage).

The increase in activity continues to be driven largely by candidates, but the interest group and party/coordinated spending difference between House and Senate races indicate that both sides believe the House is the true battleground,” said Michael Franz, associate professor of government at Bowdoin College and co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project.  “Party spending is up in the House, especially if we add in coordinated spending, while the reverse is true in the Senate where party spending is way down even if we account for the significant increase in coordinated spending.”


Table 1: Advertising in U.S. Senate Races 9/1-10/7

File formats: pdf xml

Table 2: Advertising in U.S. House Races 9/1-10/7

File formats: pdf xml


Interest group spending tells a similar story.  Although interest group airings and spending are up across the board, there are big differences between the investments being made in House versus Senate races. Interest group activity has nearly doubled in U.S. House races.

The evidence is clear: the focus right now is on control of the House. Both parties and interest groups are taking aim at key House districts races, flooding the airwaves in hopes of gaining at the margin,” said Erika Franklin Fowler, assistant professor of government at Wesleyan University and co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project. “If you account for the overall proportion of airings, interest group activity in U.S. Senate races actually fell in comparison to 2008.”  (The higher interest group spending totals in the Senate are explained by groups in 2010 spending in more expensive media markets than in 2008.)

Candidates in federal races have spent roughly $130M and Democrats have a 1.5:1 advantage in that spending.  However, between 9/1 and 10/7, almost $65M has been spent by interest groups in key federal and gubernatorial races.

Breaking down the air war by party reveals big advantages to Republicans in both party and interest group investment in federal races,” said Franz.  “Combining party and coordinated totals, Republicans are outspending Democrats by almost 3 to 2.  Among interest group spenders, Republican-leaning organizations are outspending Democrats by a margin of almost 9:1 in House and Senate contests.”

Table 3 displays the top 10 interest group spenders in all races, including Senate, House and gubernatorial.  Listed are the type of organization, number of ad airings and party affiliation (for a list of the top 30 along with more information about which races each is active in, see http://election-ad.research.wesleyan.edu/press-releases/, look for the link to the XML file).   Among the top 10 interest group spenders, Republican- leaning organizations outspent Democratic ones by a margin of over 10:1.  Furthermore, 4 of the top 10 group spenders are non-profit 501(c)(4), 501(c)(5), or 501(c)(6) organizations, which are not required to disclose their donors.

We continue to see evidence of large spending by non-profits that if nothing else are profiting from protections that do not require them to disclose their donors,” Fowler said.


Table 3: Top 10 Interest Group Spenders by Volume and Ad Count (9/1-10/7)

File formats: pdf or xml


Top races in the battle for the U.S. Senate include the three-way Florida contest weighing in at roughly $11M in ad spending and over 16,400 airings, Illinois’ contest at $10M and Pennsylvania’s Toomey vs. Sestak race at just over $9M.  Democrats had an advantage in terms of total ad airings in 4 of those races; Republicans had an advantage in 6. Top House races are Michigan’s 7th district, Minnesota’s 6th and Nevada’s 3rd, all of which broke the $2M mark in estimated spending in the five weeks following Sept. 1.

 


Table 4: Top US Senate Races in 2010 by Spending (9/1-10/7)

File formats: pdf or xml

Table 5: Top House Races in 2010 by Spending (9/1-10/7)

File formats: pdf or xml


Given the record spending this year, one has to wonder whether the campaigns have no-limit credit cards,” said Travis Ridout, co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project and associate professor of political science at Washington State University.  “Candidate spending is up, and independent group spending is up.  Spending is up in House races, and spending is up in Senate races.  With all of the ads showing up on their television screens, many Americans must be thinking that it is already the first week of November.”

The Wesleyan Media Project provides real-time tracking and analysis of all political television advertising in real-time. 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, assistant professor of government at Wesleyan University and her collaborators Michael M. Franz, associate professor of government at Bowdoin College and Travis N. Ridout, associate professor of political science at Washington State University.

The Wesleyan Media Project is supported by grants from John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, The Sunlight Foundation, Wesleyan University, and its partner institutions Bowdoin College and Washington State University.  Data provided by Kantar Media/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project using Academiclip, a web-based coding tool.  All spending amounts are estimates.

 

For more information contact:

David Pesci at 860-685-5612 or dpesci at wesleyan.edu
Erika Franklin Fowler at 860-685-3407 or efowler at wesleyan.edu
Michael M. Franz at 207-798-4318 or mfranz at bowdoin.edu, or
Travis N. Ridout at 509-335-2264 or tnridout at wsu.edu

###

(MIDDLETOWN, CT –) An estimated $198M has been spent on advertising in U.S. Senate and U.S. House races in the five weeks between 9/1 and 10/7.With September as the traditional start to the general election season, the 75 percent increase in spending (from $113M during the same period in 2008) includes an 84 percent spending increase in U.S. Senate races and a 65 percent increase in U.S. House ads.

Table 1: Advertising in U.S. Senate Races 9/1-10/7*

Year

Candidate

Party

Interest Group

Coordinated

Total

2008

Ads Aired

88,038

42,360

27,649

3,222

161,269

Row %

54.59%

26.27%

17.14%

2.00%

Cost

$30,364,125

$18,434,420

$12,335,586

$1,049,463

$62,183,594

2010

Ads Aired

142,514

16,497

28,706

14,422

202,139

Row %

70.50%

8.16%

14.20%

7.13%

Cost

$74,664,670

$7,214,370

$23,676,940

$9,084,860

$114,640,840

% volume increase

61.88%

-61.06%

3.82%

347.61%

25.34%

% spending increase

145.90%

-60.86%

91.94%

765.67%

84.36%

*Amounts may include primary advertising.

Table 2: Advertising in U.S. House Races 9/1-10/7*

Year

Candidate

Party

Interest Group

Coordinated

Total

2008

Ads Aired

95,029

15,598

7,004

3,148

120,779

Row %

78.68%

12.91%

5.80%

2.61%

Cost

$37,285,123

$7,887,159

$4,581,242

$1,013,550

$50,767,074

2010

Ads Aired

144,476

22,860

20,647

10,882

198,865

Row %

72.65%

11.50%

10.38%

5.47%

Cost

$58,462,930

$8,608,380

$13,369,060

$3,545,990

$83,986,360

% volume increase

52.03%

46.56%

194.79%

245.68%

64.65%

% spending increase

56.80%

9.14%

191.82%

249.86%

65.43%

*Amounts may include primary advertising.

CITE SOURCE OF DATA IN ALL TABLES AS:

Kantar Media/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project

“The increase in activity continues to be driven largely by candidates, but the interest group and party/coordinated spending difference between House and Senate races indicate that both sides believe the House is the true battleground,” said Michael Franz, associate professor of government at Bowdoin College and co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project. “Party spending is up in the House, especially if we add in coordinated spending, while the reverse is true in the Senate where party spending is way down even if we account for the significant increase in coordinated spending.”

Interest group spending tells a similar story.Although interest group airings and spending are up across the board, there are big differences between the investments being made in House versus Senate races. Interest group activity has nearly doubled in U.S. House races.

“The evidence is clear: the focus right now is on control of the House. Both parties and interest groups are taking aim at key House districts races, flooding the airwaves in hopes of gaining at the margin,” said Erika Franklin Fowler, assistant professor of government at Wesleyan University and co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project. “If you account for the overall proportion of airings, interest group activity in U.S. Senate races actually fell in comparison to 2008.” (The higher interest group spending totals in the Senate are explained by groups in 2010 spending in more expensive media markets than in 2008.)

Candidates in federal races have spent roughly $130M and Democrats have a 1.5:1 advantage in that spending.However, between 9/1 and 10/7, almost $65M has been spent by interest groups in key federal and gubernatorial races.

“Breaking down the air war by party reveals big advantages to Republicans in both party and interest group investment in federal races,” said Franz. “Combining party and coordinated totals, Republicans are outspending Democrats by almost 3 to 2. Among interest group spenders, Republican-leaning organizations are outspending Democrats by a margin of almost 9:1 in House and Senate contests.”

Table 4 displays the top 10 interest group spenders in all races, including Senate, House and gubernatorial. Listed are the type of organization, number of ad airings and party affiliation (for a list of the top 30 along with more information about which races each is active in, see http://election-ad.research.wesleyan.edu/press-releases/, look for the link to the XML file). Among the top 10 interest group spenders, Republican- leaning organizations outspent Democratic ones by a margin of over 10:1. Furthermore, 4 of the top 10 group spenders are non-profit 501(c)(4), 501(c)(5), or 501(c)(6) organizations, which are not required to disclose their donors.

“We continue to see evidence of large spending by non-profits that if nothing else are profiting from protections that do not require them to disclose their donors,” Fowler said.

Table 4: Top 10 Interest Group Spenders by Volume and Ad Count (9/1-10/7)*

Name

Group Type**

Estimated Spending

Spot Count

Party Lean

Republican Governor’s Association

527

$11,776,920

16945

Republican

US Chamber of Commerce

501(c)(6)

$9,051,370

8711

Republican

American Crossroads

Independent Expenditure Committee

$5,493,670

7089

Republican

Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies

501(c)(4)

$4,981,160

5723

Republican

60 Plus Association

501(c)(4)

$3,792,200

4802

Republican

American Future Fund

Independent Expenditure Committee

$2,544,210

4569

Republican

Bay State Future

527

$2,167,850

1146

Democrat

Americans for Job Security

501(c)(6)

$1,918,430

3327

Republican

Citizens for Strength and Security

527

$1,874,750

1073

Democrat

Club for Growth

Independent Expenditure Committee

$1,821,070

2276

Republican

*Amounts may include some primary race advertising.

**Groups often have more than one classification through which they conduct their political or election-related activities. The entry in this table reflects our best guess as to what organizational form funded the ads. The group type assignment may not be completely accurate because the ad disclaimers do not signify the tax entity through which the parent organization funded the ad buy.

***For a table of the Top 30 Spenders, see: http://election-ad.research.wesleyan.edu/press-releases/ (look for the link to download the XML file).

CITE SOURCE OF DATA IN ALL TABLES AS:

Kantar Media/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project

Top races in the battle for the U.S. Senate include the three-way Florida contest weighing in at roughly $11M in ad spending and over 16,400 airings, Illinois’ contest at $10M and Pennsylvania’s Toomey vs. Sestak race at just over $9M. Democrats had an advantage in terms of total ad airings in 3 of those races; Republicans had an advantage in 7.

Table 5: Top US Senate Races in 2010 by Spending (9/1-10/7)*

State

Total spending

Total Ads**

Pro-Dem Ads

Pro-GOP Ads

FL***

$10,946,810

16,409

3,813

6,736

IL

$10,370,700

10,287

5,358

4,928

PA

$9,248,720

13,253

5,837

7,416

NV

$7,850,000

17,777

10,184

6,909

CO

$7,607,590

14,207

6,810

7,397

WI

$7,426,400

18,256

7,817

10,439

CT

$7,390,870

5,548

1,728

3,770

MO

$6,248,070

15,971

4,993

10,978

WA

$5,523,810

11,750

6,833

4,917

*Amounts may include some primary advertising.
**Party totals do not always add up to overall total due to the presence of third-party candidates and/or an indeterminate party beneficiary.

***Total spending and total ad columns include numbers for independent Charlie Crist.

CITE SOURCE OF DATA IN ALL TABLES AS:

Kantar Media/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project

Top House races are Michigan’s 7th district, Minnesota’s 6th and Nevada’s 3rd, all of which broke the $2M mark in estimated spending in the five weeks following Sept. 1.

Table 6: Top House Races in 2010 by Spending (9/1-10/7)*

State

District

Total spending

Total Ads**

Pro-Dem Ads

Pro-GOP Ads

MI

7

$ 2,572,570

6,338

3,752

2,586

MN

6

$ 2,203,120

3,035

1,487

1,548

NV

3

$ 2,127,300

3,149

1,838

1,311

AZ

5

$ 1,865,730

2,300

1,225

1,075

IL

11

$ 1,814,980

832

828

4

MD

1

$ 1,761,650

3,501

2,495

1,006

SC

5

$ 1,691,410

4,408

2,235

2,173

OH

16

$ 1,682,550

2,716

1,411

1,305

FL

22

$ 1,677,560

2,742

1,360

1,382

VA

9

$ 1,597,050

4,243

2,443

1,800

*Amounts include both general election and primary advertising.
**Party totals do not always add up to overall total due to the presence of third party candidates and/or an indeterminate party beneficiary.

CITE SOURCE OF DATA IN ALL TABLES AS:

Kantar Media/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project

“Given the record spending this year, one has to wonder whether the campaigns have no-limit credit cards,” said Travis Ridout, co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project and associate professor of political science at Washington State University.“Candidate spending is up, and independent group spending is up.Spending is up in House races, and spending is up in Senate races.With all of the ads showing up on their television screens, many Americans must be thinking that it is already the first week of November.”

The Wesleyan Media Project provides real-time tracking and analysis of all political television advertising in real-time. 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, assistant professor of government at Wesleyan University and her collaborators Michael M. Franz, associate professor of government at Bowdoin College and Travis N. Ridout, associate professor of political science at Washington State University.

The Wesleyan Media Project is suppo

(MIDDLETOWN, CT –) An estimated $198M has been spent on advertising in U.S. Senate and U.S. House races in the five weeks between 9/1 and 10/7.  With September as the traditional start to the general election season, the 75 percent increase in spending (from $113M during the same period in 2008) includes an 84 percent spending increase in U.S. Senate races and a 65 percent increase in U.S. House ads.

Table 1: Advertising in U.S. Senate Races 9/1-10/7*

Year Candidate Party Interest Group Coordinated Total
2008 Ads Aired 88,038 42,360 27,649 3,222 161,269
Row % 54.59% 26.27% 17.14% 2.00%
Cost $30,364,125 $18,434,420 $12,335,586 $1,049,463 $62,183,594
2010 Ads Aired 142,514 16,497 28,706 14,422 202,139
Row % 70.50% 8.16% 14.20% 7.13%
Cost $74,664,670 $7,214,370 $23,676,940 $9,084,860 $114,640,840
% volume increase 61.88% -61.06% 3.82% 347.61% 25.34%
% spending increase 145.90% -60.86% 91.94% 765.67% 84.36%

*Amounts may include primary advertising.

Table 2: Advertising in U.S. House Races 9/1-10/7*

Year Candidate Party Interest Group Coordinated Total
2008 Ads Aired 95,029 15,598 7,004 3,148 120,779
Row % 78.68% 12.91% 5.80% 2.61%
Cost $37,285,123 $7,887,159 $4,581,242 $1,013,550 $50,767,074
2010 Ads Aired 144,476 22,860 20,647 10,882 198,865
Row % 72.65% 11.50% 10.38% 5.47%
Cost $58,462,930 $8,608,380 $13,369,060 $3,545,990 $83,986,360
% volume increase 52.03% 46.56% 194.79% 245.68% 64.65%
% spending increase 56.80% 9.14% 191.82% 249.86% 65.43%

*Amounts may include primary advertising.

CITE SOURCE OF DATA IN ALL TABLES AS:

Kantar Media/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project

“The increase in activity continues to be driven largely by candidates, but the interest group and party/coordinated spending difference between House and Senate races indicate that both sides believe the House is the true battleground,” said Michael Franz, associate professor of government at Bowdoin College and co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project.  “Party spending is up in the House, especially if we add in coordinated spending, while the reverse is true in the Senate where party spending is way down even if we account for the significant increase in coordinated spending.”

Interest group spending tells a similar story.  Although interest group airings and spending are up across the board, there are big differences between the investments being made in House versus Senate races. Interest group activity has nearly doubled in U.S. House races.

“The evidence is clear: the focus right now is on control of the House. Both parties and interest groups are taking aim at key House districts races, flooding the airwaves in hopes of gaining at the margin,” said Erika Franklin Fowler, assistant professor of government at Wesleyan University and co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project. “If you account for the overall proportion of airings, interest group activity in U.S. Senate races actually fell in comparison to 2008.”  (The higher interest group spending totals in the Senate are explained by groups in 2010 spending in more expensive media markets than in 2008.)

Candidates in federal races have spent roughly $130M and Democrats have a 1.5:1 advantage in that spending.  However, between 9/1 and 10/7, almost $65M has been spent by interest groups in key federal and gubernatorial races.

“Breaking down the air war by party reveals big advantages to Republicans in both party and interest group investment in federal races,” said Franz.  “Combining party and coordinated totals, Republicans are outspending Democrats by almost 3 to 2.  Among interest group spenders, Republican-leaning organizations are outspending Democrats by a margin of almost 9:1 in House and Senate contests.”

Table 4 displays the top 10 interest group spenders in all races, including Senate, House and gubernatorial.  Listed are the type of organization, number of ad airings and party affiliation (for a list of the top 30 along with more information about which races each is active in, see http://election-ad.research.wesleyan.edu/press-releases/, look for the link to the XML file).   Among the top 10 interest group spenders, Republican- leaning organizations outspent Democratic ones by a margin of over 10:1.  Furthermore, 4 of the top 10 group spenders are non-profit 501(c)(4), 501(c)(5), or 501(c)(6) organizations, which are not required to disclose their donors.

“We continue to see evidence of large spending by non-profits that if nothing else are profiting from protections that do not require them to disclose their donors,” Fowler said.

Table 4: Top 10 Interest Group Spenders by Volume and Ad Count (9/1-10/7)*

Name Group Type** Estimated Spending Spot Count Party Lean
Republican Governor’s Association 527 $11,776,920 16945 Republican
US Chamber of Commerce 501(c)(6) $9,051,370 8711 Republican
American Crossroads Independent Expenditure Committee $5,493,670 7089 Republican
Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies 501(c)(4) $4,981,160 5723 Republican
60 Plus Association 501(c)(4) $3,792,200 4802 Republican
American Future Fund Independent Expenditure Committee $2,544,210 4569 Republican
Bay State Future 527 $2,167,850 1146 Democrat
Americans for Job Security 501(c)(6) $1,918,430 3327 Republican
Citizens for Strength and Security 527 $1,874,750 1073 Democrat
Club for Growth Independent Expenditure Committee $1,821,070 2276 Republican

*Amounts may include some primary race advertising.

**Groups often have more than one classification through which they conduct their political or election-related activities.  The entry in this table reflects our best guess as to what organizational form funded the ads.  The group type assignment may not be completely accurate because the ad disclaimers do not signify the tax entity through which the parent organization funded the ad buy.

***For a table of the Top 30 Spenders, see: http://election-ad.research.wesleyan.edu/press-releases/ (look for the link to download the XML file).

CITE SOURCE OF DATA IN ALL TABLES AS:

Kantar Media/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project

Top races in the battle for the U.S. Senate include the three-way Florida contest weighing in at roughly $11M in ad spending and over 16,400 airings, Illinois’ contest at $10M and Pennsylvania’s Toomey vs. Sestak race at just over $9M.  Democrats had an advantage in terms of total ad airings in 3 of those races; Republicans had an advantage in 7.

Table 5: Top US Senate Races in 2010 by Spending (9/1-10/7)*

State Total spending Total Ads** Pro-Dem Ads Pro-GOP Ads
FL*** $10,946,810 16,409 3,813 6,736
IL $10,370,700 10,287 5,358 4,928
PA $9,248,720 13,253 5,837 7,416
NV $7,850,000 17,777 10,184 6,909
CO $7,607,590 14,207 6,810 7,397
WI $7,426,400 18,256 7,817 10,439
CT $7,390,870 5,548 1,728 3,770
MO $6,248,070 15,971 4,993 10,978
WA $5,523,810 11,750 6,833 4,917

*Amounts may include some primary advertising.
**Party totals do not always add up to overall total due to the presence of third-party candidates and/or an indeterminate party beneficiary.

***Total spending and total ad columns include numbers for independent Charlie Crist.

CITE SOURCE OF DATA IN ALL TABLES AS:

Kantar Media/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project

Top House races are Michigan’s 7th district, Minnesota’s 6th and Nevada’s 3rd, all of which broke the $2M mark in estimated spending in the five weeks following Sept. 1.

Table 6: Top House Races in 2010 by Spending (9/1-10/7)*

State District Total spending Total Ads** Pro-Dem Ads Pro-GOP Ads
MI 7 $   2,572,570 6,338 3,752 2,586
MN 6 $   2,203,120 3,035 1,487 1,548
NV 3 $   2,127,300 3,149 1,838 1,311
AZ 5 $   1,865,730 2,300 1,225 1,075
IL 11 $   1,814,980 832 828 4
MD 1 $   1,761,650 3,501 2,495 1,006
SC 5 $   1,691,410 4,408 2,235 2,173
OH 16 $   1,682,550 2,716 1,411 1,305
FL 22 $   1,677,560 2,742 1,360 1,382
VA 9 $   1,597,050 4,243 2,443 1,800

*Amounts include both general election and primary advertising.
**Party totals do not always add up to overall total due to the presence of third party candidates and/or an indeterminate party beneficiary.

CITE SOURCE OF DATA IN ALL TABLES AS:

Kantar Media/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project

“Given the record spending this year, one has to wonder whether the campaigns have no-limit credit cards,” said Travis Ridout, co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project and associate professor of political science at Washington State University.  “Candidate spending is up, and independent group spending is up.  Spending is up in House races, and spending is up in Senate races.  With all of the ads showing up on their television screens, many Americans must be thinking that it is already the first week of November.”

The Wesleyan Media Project provides real-time tracking and analysis of all political television advertising in real-time. 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, assistant professor of government at Wesleyan University and her collaborators Michael M. Franz, associate professor of government at Bowdoin College and Travis N. Ridout, associate professor of political science at Washington State University.

The Wesleyan Media Project is supported by grants from John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, The Sunlight Foundation, Wesleyan University, and its partner institutions Bowdoin College and Washington State University.  Data provided by Kantar Media/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project using Academiclip, a web-based coding tool.  All spending amounts are estimates.

The Wesleyan Media Project’s website can be found here:

http://election-ad.research.wesleyan.edu/

For more information contact:

David Pesci at 860-685-5612 or dpesci at wesleyan.edu

Erika Franklin Fowler at 860-685-3407 or efowler at wesleyan.edu

Michael M. Franz at 207-798-4318 or mfranz at bowdoin.edu, or

Travis N. Ridout at 509-335-2264 or tnridout at wsu.edu

###

rted by grants from John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, The Sunlight Foundation, Wesleyan University, and its partner institutions Bowdoin College and Washington State University. Data provided by Kantar Media/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project using Academiclip, a web-based coding tool. All spending amounts are estimates.

The Wesleyan Media Project’s website can be found here:

http://election-ad.research.wesleyan.edu/

For more information contact:

David Pesci at 860-685-5612 or dpesci at wesleyan.edu

Erika Franklin Fowler at 860-685-3407 or efowler at wesleyan.edu

Michael M. Franz at 207-798-4318 or mfranz at bowdoin.edu, or

Travis N. Ridout at 509-335-2264 or tnridout at wsu.edu

###

Comments are closed.