What would you do with 6 billion dollars? Spend it on an election, of course! This past election cost candidates and Super PACs more than 6 billion dollars. (Thats 700 million more than in 2008.) SIX... BILLION... DOLLARS... - sorry channeling my inner Dr. Evil. More money than most people could even dream about.
It is easy to say that the money was well spent if the outcome of the election was what you wanted. It’s just as easy to say the money was a complete waste if you were not so happy with the outcome. But why aren’t more people saying, “This is a ridiculous amount of money!!”
With six billion dollars we could have put 32,000 students through USC, bought 800 million six-packs of Budweiser, paid half of FEMA’s budget for the year, or spent it on something other than commercials.
Why have campaigns become so expensive? One cause came in 2010 when the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, that private interests groups are no longer restricted by spending limits. Groups are allowed to spend unlimited amounts of money. So they do.
Most of this happens in the form of super PACs. Money is raised from corporations, unions, individuals and associations. This money is then spent in support or opposition of a candidate. Super PACs spent 631 million dollars doing just that.
The Sunlight Foundation calculated the returns on investments for the super PACs spending the most amount of money in this election. Lets break down the numbers from one of the least successful groups and one of the most successful groups.
American Crossroads, spent over $104 million, with a 1.29% return. Supporting Republicans, American Crossroads was one of the least successful outside groups of the election. They spent $84 million in advertisements against President Obama alone!
Planned Parenthood Action Fund Inc., spent $7 million with a 97.82% return. Most of the money spent opposed candidates that lost. Three-quarters of their money was spent in opposition of Romney, through online advertisements, phone calls and radio advertisements.
Most of the money spent during this was on commercials, negative in tone. Former Pennsylvania Governor, Ed Rendell claims Republican led super PACs lost because they did not spend their money well. Most of their money was spent on TV ads, which Rendell states, “Were so pervasive, people stopped listening.” Not to mention with DVR and online streaming it is easier to bypass all of those annoying commercials.
This money game extended far past the presidential campaign this year. Five Senate races cost over $20 million and three House races cost over $10 million. In order to run, you must either have a lot of cash to spend, or be able to come up with huge amounts of money through donations. Either way, running for a political office is becoming a race between the millionaires. After this past campaign season, I can say I am not so sure we really want these millionaires leading our country.
Alternatively, you could back yourself with a super PAC. With outside funding anyone can compete in elections. But, you often receive more than just money. Along with the PACs you have their expectations and interests. By backing a particular candidate these groups are investing in proposed legislation that satisfies them.
Now with the election over, critics of super PACs have become abundant. While many seem to be against the PACs, they always end with the notion that the PACs will be even more important in 2016. Why are they just conceding?
How can the PACs that invested hundred of millions just to watch their opposition win be compelled to spend such vast amounts of money in four years? As David Freedlander points out “candidates can use the extra campaign funds to boost their name recognition in early primary states.” So candidates can spend less of their own money and yield similar effects. That seems like a good system!
As of today the Supreme Court has no interest in reopening Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, nor does it seem the ruling will be repealed from the legislative level. Then again, why would the people benefitting from super PAC spending repeal their unlimited budgets?
You make such a great point -- why is all of this money spent by campaigns and super PACs? It's so ridiculous. For those conservative PACs, I am even more confused. The amount of money that top donors provided in hopes of securing a Romney win (and wins for congressional and senate candidates) likely doesn't equal the amount of difference in taxes that would come their way under a Romney administration as opposed to that of Obama. Most of the uber-rich seemingly donate their money in hopes of lowering their tax burden. Why don't they just PAY THEIR TAXES with the money they are donating towards the campaigns of conservatives?
ReplyDeleteTo be honest, I don't know where the majority of funding comes for these campaigns. Yes there's the Super PACs running campaign ads, but there are so many other costs to consider. Where do they get the money to pay people who work on their campaign, to pay for hotel rooms in the various cities they visit for speeches? So while I agree that Super PACs have really made a complete mess of the political landscape, I think we need to be careful what restrictions we put on campaign funding. It could get to the point where campaigns must be completely funded out of pocket. So we would be restricting our choices to those who have had successful political careers and have amassed huge amounts of money. This certainly isn't the system that George Washinton left for us, but it's allowing people to express their opinions in forms of monetary contributions to those they want to see in power. And in this free market capitalist system, I don't see a problem with it. It needs to be carefully regulated, something the government has a direct conflict of interest in doing.
ReplyDeleteWhat on earth was the Supreme Court thinking when it made its decision in Citizens United? I don't agree with the decision but I definitely do not agree with candidates supporting their own campaigns with their own pocket money. Though this post is on a national level, this happened in California this year with Governor Brown's tax initiative, Proposition 30, which raised the sales tax and income tax for those who earn $250,000/year or more and Molly Munger's tax initiative, which raised taxes on everyone (like that's going to pass) which was Proposition 38. Despite Governor Brown trying to only place his initiative on the ballot (because having two initiatives for common purposes usually results in a split vote or people voting no just to not have to decide between two separate initiatives), Munger, who is the daughter of the billionaire investor Charles Munger, pretty much funded her own campaign.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.sacbee.com/2012/10/12/4905028/gov-jerry-browns-budget-plans.html
At the rate we are going, the campaign in 2016 is unimaginable. This uncertainty and unknown is extremely frightening. How much money will be spent then?
When I think about how the money can be put into much better use, instead of political smear campaigns, it shakes my faith in humanity a little. I know one proposed counterargument would be that this money is justifiable, because having the right president will produce the right outcomes and the actions. I do not personally endorse this kind of view.
ReplyDeletePolitics has become primarily focused on who can conjure up the most donors, who is the best at campaigning instead of who could be potter overall as a candidate. If you're not one of the two main parties (Democratic and Republican) it is hard to find donors who will support you.
It is incredible to me to think what $6 billion could achieve had it been put to better use. While some may disagree with this statement, that $6 billion was spent and absolutely nothing has changed. Unfortunately, I fear that in the future we are going to see higher and higher costs as candidates equate the amount of money they raise to the likelihood they will be elected. While money may play a big role in a candidates ability to reach the public, wiser spending tactics must be put into place. As you pointed out, with the advent of new technologies--such as DVR--candidates must find new ways to efficiently reach the public while being cost effective.
ReplyDeleteIt is also a shame to see how much money is being wasted on negative campaigning. Personally, I made it a point to ignore negative ads as most stretch the truth. Hopefully in the future, more Americans will take the time to research and discover their own truth rather than listen to biased ads.