As we dive headfirst into election season, the countless attack advertisements that have plagued our televisions, especially at the height of the recall elections, are coming back to flood the airwaves in Biblical proportion – all thanks to the onslaught of super PACs footing the bill.
But the American public has been well prepared for this barrage, with countless analyses of the post-Citizens United political environment. One thing is clear in this age of super PACs, though – the Republicans are better at it.
President Barack Obama’s campaign sends out emails and tweets and phone calls imploring anyone with liberal tendencies to donate, while according to nymag.com, the latest numbers show GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney with $62 million more cash on hand than Obama as of Aug. 20. The difference in numbers between Obama and Romney’s biggest super PAC backers dramatically illustrates the point. According to independent newsroom ProPublica’s PAC Track, the pro-Obama Priorities USA sits with a measly $21,933,068 in total receipts, while the pro-Romney Restore Our Future super PAC has $82,224,493. And it’s not just Romney. The Center for Responsive Politics reports conservative super PACs have spent $137.1 million through the end of July, while liberal super PACs spent only $31.1 million.
It makes too much sense that the Republicans are blowing Democrats out of the water when it comes to funding, especially through super PACs. Rich people have always loved Republicans because rich people love not paying taxes. Why would billionaire casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, who, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, has donated $36 million to conservative causes this election cycle – by far the biggest donor to super PACs across the board – back a candidate who wouldn’t be likely to allow his company, Las Vegas Sands, to make more of its total profits untaxed? He wouldn’t.
When the floodgates of campaign finances were opened through Citizens United, the layers of separation put in place to avoid cooperation between candidates and their supposedly independent backers were obliterated. As reported by The New York Times, Restore Our Future shares an office building with several Romney campaign consultants.
But Romney will tell you he doesn’t like the game he has to play. “My own view is I don’t like all the influence of money in politics,” he said, as noted by The Boston Globe, “but I don’t have a solution that’s a lot better than saying let people contribute what they will, then report it, let people know who gave what to who.”
Which would be all good and well if that were the reality of the situation. Non-profit organizations, unlike super PACs, are not required to disclose their donors, reports USA Today. Thus, a more inconspicuous donor can drop millions at a time for groups like the Mercury Trust, a non-profit which the Center for Responsive Politics reports donated close to $500 million to Restore Our Future without ever having to disclose its identity. It’s a simple process that leaves the public in the dark.
A few months out from the election, the picture is getting clearer. Whatever stipulations the Supreme Court and the Federal Election Commission have placed on super PAC funding have been manipulated past recognition, and now modern day robber barons like Adelson buy candidates their seats with negative ad funding.
But Adelson and his crew of conservative big-spenders could very well be dropping their cash in vain.
There is plenty of evidence to suggest wild spending makes a marginal difference in polling. On Freakonomics.com, Steven Levitt and Kai Ryssdal conducted a study attempting to isolate the effect of spending in campaigns and reached this conclusion – all other variables held constant, when a candidate doubles their spending, they only get an additional one percent of the vote.
The authors go on to point out that Rick Perry, who with $4.3 million spent the most on advertising at the Iowa caucuses, was far surpassed by Rick Santorum, who dropped a mere $30,000 and essentially tied with Romney.
The latest Gallup Poll shows Romney and Obama neck and neck at 46 percent to 47 percent, respectively. If Obama wins, he will be the first to win the presidency after being outspent by his opponent. And while Adelson and his buddies might shake their wrinkly fists at the screen if Obama wins, the millions they donated will still be drops in their proverbial buckets. If only they felt that way about paying taxes.
Meher Ahmad ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in international studies and Middle Eastern studies.
