logo

Campaign spending doesn't guarantee victory, but it does boost the clout of special interests

image
Author: Alan Markow
Created: 22 October, 2010
Updated: 13 October, 2022
3 min read

It takes serious chutzpah to argue that money makes no difference in politics, since some of the smartest and wealthiest people in the country find investing in political candidates so appealing.  But David Brooks, in his New York Times column this week, argues that the money doesn't really matter all that much when it comes to winning or losing on the campaign trail. 

     "Over the past year, the Democrats, most of whom are incumbents, have been raising and spending far more than the Republicans," writes Brooks.  "Despite this financial advantage, Democrats have been sinking in the polls." 

The columnist has conveniently ignored the impact of the recent Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case, though.  Because of this 5-4 precedent setting verdict by the court, money can now pour into politics that is neither raised nor spent by candidates or parties.  Another Times writer, online op-ed contributor Tim Egan, notes that the kind of special interest funding permitted under Citizens United is running 9 to 1 in favor of Republicans.   Writing from Colorado, which he calls "ground zero for what is happening in (Supreme Court Chief Justice) John Robert's America," Egan describes the new brand of politics as practiced out west: 

     "The sludge flow from out-of-state, secretive political groups is unrelenting. All hours. All mediums. A football game-break brings three attacks in a row, calling a senator a liar, a vandal and a glutton for debt. A weather update is interrupted by a trio of hits from the other side, making the challenger out to be the worst thing for women since Neanderthal man took up a club as an accessory to romance." 

Brooks counters that the media blitz "isn’t persuasive; it’s mind-numbing. No wonder voters tune it all out. Amid this onslaught, there is no way a slightly richer ad campaign is going to make much difference." 

For a media-savvy reporter, Brooks seems unusually clueless about the effectiveness of mind-numbing advertising – the kind that makes brand names "top of mind" for consumers.  Such classics as "Squeeze the Charmin" and "Ring Around the Collar" may have been detested by television viewers, but they were effective enough to sell plenty of toilet paper and laundry detergent.  What's most important in advertising – political and otherwise – is repetition.  The exact nature of the message is secondary.  It's a simple equation – the more available money, the larger the ad buy and the greater the name recognition for a given candidate. 

We have very little data that would predict the long-term impact of the Citizens United case, but statistics tells us that there's a mounting cost to electioneering, and that money buys more than votes – it buys influence.  So politicians who have to beg for contributions just to maintain a competitive edge over their opponents will be less likely to vote counter to the interests of their direct or indirect benefactors. 

After all, businesses and their shareholders expect a return on their investment.  From a corporate point of view, the Supreme Court has opened the doors to "the best government money can buy."  And the special interests are all in for the lion's share.

IVP Existence Banner

Latest articles

votes
Wyoming Purges Nearly 30% of Its Voters from Registration Rolls
It is not uncommon for a state to clean out its voter rolls every couple of years -- especially to r...
27 March, 2024
-
1 min read
ballot box
The Next Big Win in Better Election Reform Could Come Where Voters Least Expect
Idaho isn't a state that gets much attention when people talk about politics in the US. However, this could change in 2024 if Idahoans for Open Primaries and their allies are successful with their proposed initiative....
21 March, 2024
-
3 min read
Courts
Why Do We Accept Partisanship in Judicial Elections?
The AP headline reads, "Ohio primary: Open seat on state supreme court could flip partisan control." This immediately should raise a red flag for voters, and not because of who may benefit but over a question too often ignored....
19 March, 2024
-
9 min read
Nick Troiano
Virtual Discussion: The Primary Solution with Unite America's Nick Troiano
In the latest virtual discussion from Open Primaries, the group's president, John Opdycke, sat down ...
19 March, 2024
-
1 min read
Sinema
Sinema's Exit Could Be Bad News for Democrats -- Here's Why
To many, the 2024 presidential primary has been like the movie Titanic - overly long and ending in a disaster we all saw coming from the start. After months of campaigning and five televised primary debates, Americans are now faced with a rematch between two candidates polling shows a majority of them didn’t want....
19 March, 2024
-
7 min read