Most of us have some perceptions and beliefs that don’t match reality. One modern example is the actual percentage of the American population that is gay vs what people’s perception is. Gallup polls put the latter at around 1 in 4, when the reality is less than 1 in 20. Another is crime in America, which has been in steady decline for a quarter century but which many people perceive as increasing. So it goes with money in politics.
We hear stories of massive political spending by politicians and advocacy groups and huge donations by billionaires and large corporations, but I don’t think most of us realize how those numbers compare to things we consider trivial in daily life. Consider that the total amount of money spent in the 2012 election was about $7B. By contrast, last year, Americans spent $70B on lottery tickets, $6B on potato chips, $6B at Taco Bell, and $5B on college sports swag.
The number of multimillionaire and billionaire political activists is small – small enough to be listed by name. The political activity of corporations, while rage-inducing amongst liberals (run into the editorial offices of Daily Kos, Vox, Huffington Post or MSNBC, scream “Citizens United rules!” and see if you can get out alive), is also rather small. The influence of all these donors is also widely misperceived. Consider the mighty NRA, the lobby that supposedly has a stranglehold on enough politicians to halt “common sense” gun legislation in its tracks. In 2014, the NRA’s total political contributions to federal candidates was a bit under $1 million. By contrast, anti-gun billionaire activist Michael Bloomberg donated over $28 million (30 TIMES as much as the NRA) to federal candidates. If we look at all pro- vs anti- gun rights spending, the imbalance grows even greater. Why, then, has gun control legislation been a non-starter? The evidence strongly refutes the power of money to buy political outcomes.
Consider another Bloomberg political expenditure: his campaign for a third term as mayor of New York City. He spent over $100 million, SIXTEEN TIMES what his opponent Bill Thompson did, and was a two-term incumbent. Despite all that, he won by less than 5% of the vote.
Consider, also, that Jeb Bush spent $130 million on his 2016 Presidential primary run, and never exceeded low single digit percentages in polling. If nothing else, this election cycle has succeeded in killing the myth that money can buy elections.
Consider that Hillary Clinton has been massively outspending Donald Trump, yet has only opened up a decent lead in the polls in the last couple weeks.
Yes, there are excuses galore. Political animals clamp onto their preordained beliefs and conclusions harder than a miser on a C-note, and they either dismiss such examples as aberrations or blame the particulars. Bush was a weak candidate, politicians are excessively worried about the NRA, Trump’s been getting tons of free press. As to Bush – doesn’t his weakness prove that voters see past money? As to the NRA – perhaps those pols are worried about the voters themselves, who have proven in past elections to punish anti-gun politicians on Election Day? In Colorado in 2013, two anti-gun politicians suffered the humiliation of being recalled by angry pro-gun voters. And, as to Trump getting massive free press – the press has defenestrated its last vestiges of impartiality in favor of an all-out assault on Trump – so how does that “free press” help him?
Campaign-finance-reform advocates insist that politics are tainted by Big Money. Drill down past their high-and-noble veneers, and you’ll often find a cynical pursuit of power and control that hasn’t been sated through normal channels. Why are there no complaints from these quarters about the big money coming to their preferred candidates? Such questions are usually answered with “we have to fight fire with fire” or some other such platitude. What they really want is to win elections, and if it takes hobbling the opposition to do so, well, the ends justify the means. Don’t believe me? Where are they on the subject of the $2 billion the Clinton Foundation has received over the past couple decades from decidedly unsavory or conflicting sources, such as certain Middle East nations?
Many politicians protest loudly that “money is not speech.” They don’t feel that you should be able to spend your money to advocate your political inclinations, despite your absolute right to vocalize them. These politicians have their supporters, who decry the alleged outsize influence of Big Money on politics, and hypocritically denounce the recent Citizens United ruling while ignoring the fact that Big Money from unions has long been part of the game.
Some also think that public financing of political campaigns can remove the alleged taint of Big Money, but, really, isn’t this simply about tapping into taxpayers’ pockets against their will? It’s much easier to get money with a gun than with persuasion.
Hypocrisy abounds when people start talking about restricting others’ right to spend their own money as they see fit. We merely have to scratch the surface to see that the motives are selfish and about tipping the scales in their favor. The evidence certainly doesn’t support their assertion that Big Money buys elections. Do we believe that they are genuinely unaware of the evidence, or that they ignore it because it doesn’t suit their purposes. The latter is the cynical view, but I don’t think it’s possible to be too cynical when it comes to politics. Especially when it’s about other people’s money.
Loading ...
Money can’t buy elections. But lack of money can lose them.
Yet another reason that the anti-money activists want to control who gets what.