Patterico's Pontifications

2/21/2012

The (allegedly) high cost of campaigns

Filed under: 2012 Election — Karl @ 6:50 am



[Posted by Karl]

MoJo’s Kevin Drum acknowledges what most progressives will not:

From 1964 all the way through 2000, the cost of presidential campaigns was pretty stable, ranging around $300-600 million in inflation-adjusted terms. It was only in 2004 and 2008 that costs suddenly went through the roof.

And that happened without the eeevil Citizens United ruling from the Supreme Court.  That decision paved the way for super-PACs, much-demonized on the left, despite the fact that they increase the transparency of campaigns and level the playing field. If not for super-PACs, Mitt Romney’s rivals (save Ron Paul) would likely have been out weeks ago.

Instead, Romney is running into fundraising troubles.  Of course, a guy worth $200 million can write himself a check.  However, that would only play into narratives about Mitt’s wealth and weakness that he would surely prefer to avoid if possible.

As January fundraising numbers became public Monday, some noted Romney’s $6.5 million take was far less than what Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and even John McCain raised four Januarys ago.  On the other hand, Obama raised much less now than four Januarys ago, and the Romney-Santorum total is competitive.  The fundraising to date — and Obama’s hypocritical embrace of super-PACs — suggests that overall campaign spending may not set a record this cycle.

Campaign spending should not be the progressives’ bete noire in the first place.  As George Will is fond of noting, total campaign spending is roughly what Proctor & Gamble spends advertising its products in one year, or what Americans spend on yogurt in a given year.  Given that the government now bails out everyone from Goldman Sachs to the UAW, turns the health insurance industry into a tax collector for the welfare state, and works a regulatory stranglehold on domestic energy production while dumping money into the crony capitalism of so-called “green jobs” programs, the shock ought to be that more people aren’t trying to buy elections.

Progressives fixated on the allegedly high cost of campaigns ought to be more concerned with the very real costs of the government leviathan.  The progressives’ concern ought to be that a government this corrupt and intrusive invites capture by the wealthy and powerful.  But it never was their concern, dating back to the progressive era of Teddy Roosevelt.  For all of the prog posturing about being for the people against the powerful, they have always been accomodating to the latter if it serves their statist agenda.

–Karl

39 Responses to “The (allegedly) high cost of campaigns”

  1. Ding!

    Karl (6f7ecd)

  2. the spendings may have ballooned in 2004 but the silly spending angst can be traced back to when Meghan’s coward daddy got caught with his hand in the Keating cookie jar…

    sensing opportunity, the Pew Charitable Trusts used him like the pliable little bitch he is

    and bam! – Superpacs!

    Idiots.

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  3. feets!

    Also worth mentioning that when outside groups are counted, Dems were almost certainly the most spendy in ’04 and ’08.

    Karl (6f7ecd)

  4. Happyfeet, who does Meghan and her daddy support these days? Just wondering.

    I don’t have a problem with super PACs, but I don’t see this as any kind of improvement.

    I’ve been saying for months that the way Romney spends money to win early states is not a good indication of his strength as a candidate. The longer the primary lasts, the less feasible it is to run 10:1 attack ad ratios.

    Also, Obama discussed how his executive experience came from running a campaign. This is somewhat silly, but it does speak to one’s leadership skills. Some of the GOP candidates spend like there’s no tomorrow, and then they run out of money. Others seem to be more creative and effective.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  5. They are Mitten’s minions, had Drum complained about a 9/1 fundraising advantage with Obama, then he would have grounds to grouse.

    narciso (87e966)

  6. You corporatist racist RethugliKKKans could not survive without your filthy lucre from the Kock Brothers and their ilks.

    JD (71db8c)

  7. spending and messaging are almost totally unrelated I think though

    more egregiously than they were out-spent, Team R was out-messaged in 2008, and so, far this year, thanks mostly of late to 90s culture war boy, it’s been very challenging for Team R to stay on topic

    The economy sucks something fierce.

    And all you can say about how Team R’s messaging on the matter is that at least Romney isn’t suspending his campaign to yammer about Focus On the Family bibble babble.

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  8. wow that was a lot of commas

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  9. re-arrange them as you see fit

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  10. Mr. Feets – Charles Keating was merely trying to protect the hot money funding of his tiny savings and loan from hyper-aggressive government regulators by petitioning the government, a right of any citizen and a skill he learned at the feet of his mentor, Carl Lindner, the Milk Man. Never mind that four of the five members of the “Keating Five” were democrats and that Keating was an Ohio transplant.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  11. if that’s all it was then Meghan’s daddy acted awful guilty I think Mr. daley… in fact he seemed to sorta suggest actually that the Keating episode was an indication that the whole system was brokened and needed massive reform

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  12. “I have been guilty of the appearance of corruption,” Mccain tells Investigative Correspondent Michael Isikoff in the current issue of Newsweek. But, he insists, he has no choice. If he didn’t collect cash from companies who appear before his committee, he says, he couldn’t compete with his better-funded rivals. At least, he argues, he’s trying to minimize the corrupting influence of money.

    But Mccain is a Republican and we need to consider your obligation to the team. Criticizing Republicans like Mccain as liberal or as unreliable is not helpful for the team. Of course, blasting Rick Perry as “chicago level corrupt” is OK. That’s different.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  13. Team Sleaze is down to its last $7.7 Million in cash on hand.

    Guess we’ll get to see some of that vaunted crisis management.

    gary gulrud (1de2db)

  14. Another detail to factor in, fiat debasment:

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/dow-passes-13000-nominal-terms-here-real-picture

    Central banks have doubled the currency supply over the last four adding $7 Trillion. They doubled it in the 5 years prior as well.

    gary gulrud (1de2db)

  15. Sheldon Adelson, who is giving Neutron another $10 Million on top of the $11 Million he and his wife have parted with, is worth $25 Billion.

    Like a millionaire parting with $440.

    gary gulrud (1de2db)

  16. “And that happened without the eeevil Citizens United ruling from the Supreme Court. That decision paved the way for super-PACs, much-demonized on the left, …”

    Oh please.

    Super-PACs were not paved by ‘Citizens United’.

    It was Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).

    Swift Boat Veterans for Truth
    was a “super-PAC.”

    All ‘Citizens United’ did was allow corporations and unions into the mix.

    Oscar Wilde (d1c681)

  17. “And that happened without the eeevil Citizens United ruling from the Supreme Court. That decision paved the way for super-PACs, much-demonized on the left, …”

    Oh please.
    Super-PACs were not paved by ‘Citizens United’.

    It was Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).
    Swift Boat Veterans for Truth was a “super-PAC.”

    All ‘Citizens United’ did was allow corporations and unions into the mix.

    Neo (133602)

  18. PACs could spend wildly before Citizens United, they just couldn’t take corporate donations for political purposes. Adelson could spend as much in 2000 as he’s spending now; nothing to do with Citizen’s United.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  19. And, more particularly, the ruling on unlimited pooled donations came in Speechnow.org v FEC, not Citizen’s United.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  20. SpeechNOW.org v FEC relied on Citizens United as a precedent.

    That link (which goes to a Wikipedia article) links the rise of Super Pacs to something even later: FEC Advisory Opinion 2010-11

    Commonsense Ten’s request, approved on July 22, 2010, was more expansive than that of the Club for Growth, and the results more far reaching – giving birth to Super-PACs.

    An IE-only PAC could now accept unlimited contributions from corporations, unions, and other entities (for the first time outside their SSF’s), as well as individuals.

    Super-PACs have proliferated since, registering with the FEC at a pace of one each day, and raising and expending vast amounts of money into the campaign finance landscape to directly advocate in support of, or opposition to, individual candidates.

    IE = Independent Expenditure

    SSF= Separate Segregated Fund

    Sammy Finkelman (bbe5c1)

  21. Folks,

    I’m aware of Buckley and Speechnow. Used to work at the FEC. It is worth noting that Commonsense Ten was again a prog outfit.

    Karl (f07e38)

  22. However, that would only play into narratives about Mitt’s wealth and weakness that he would surely prefer to avoid if possible.

    — Mitt probably wants to avoid dipping into the personal stash, regardless of how it plays into the narrative.

    Icy (3354cb)

  23. Icy – 2012: Still waiting for my cut of that Koch money.

    Barry Sotero – 1982: “Yo, still waitin’ for my cut of that blow money!”

    Icy (3354cb)

  24. Comment by Dustin — 2/21/2012 @ 7:17 am

    I’ve been saying for months that the way Romney spends money to win early states is not a good indication of his strength as a candidate. The longer the primary lasts, the less feasible it is to run 10:1 attack ad ratios.

    I think Newt Gingrich (and Rick Santorum) are counting on the idea that Mitt Romney simply will not be able to duplicate what he did in Iowa and Florida in all the other states.

    It has also been pointed out that he will not have a monetary advantage in the general election.

    Also, Obama discussed how his executive experience came from running a campaign. This is somewhat silly, but it does speak to one’s leadership skills. Some of the GOP candidates spend like there’s no tomorrow, and then they run out of money. Others seem to be more creative and effective.

    I saw in the current (February 27, 2012 delivered last Friday) issue of TIME Magazine, page 26:

    “Gingrich probably mad a tragic mistake when he bet the ranch on Florida and lost. We’re not going to make that mistake.”

    – John Brabender, Rick Santorum’s “top strategist”

    Sammy Finkelman (bbe5c1)

  25. It has also been pointed out that he will not have a monetary advantage in the general election.

    Indeed. We need a GOP candidate who can handle a fight where he has a financial disadvantage.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  26. Rick Perry quit South Carolina before had spent all of his money. He’s now planning to convert his campaign fund into a PAC.

    Newt Gingrich is back on the campaign trail. I guess he’s finished raising money for now.

    He campaigned in Georgia the other day with Herman Cain. He was interviewed on the Sean Hanity show yesterday. He seems somewhat philosophical about things. I think it’s his wife Callista who really wants him to continue. Within one day or so last week, he switched from saying that negative attacks (by Romney) on Santorum would help him to saying he’s really helped by a positive campaign and he said yesterday he’s going to wage a positive campaign talking about solutions and mentioning 4 separate ideas or issues (all economic I think)

    Sammy Finkelman (bbe5c1)

  27. There will be a debate tomorrow, Wednesday night, on CNN at 8 PM Eastern time. (6 PM Mountain time)

    This was agreed to I think weeks ago.

    This might be the last debate. They get harder to schedule the more the number of candidates goes down.

    In 2008 there was a little bit of difficulty in getting Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to agree to a debate before Super Tuesday, but thy did agree to two debates, one in Ohio and one in Texas.

    There was a debate on CNN scheduled a week from now Thursday in Georgia on March 1 but Romney pulled out and Ron Paul indicted he was pulling out and Rick Santorum indicated he would probably pull out and CNN said it was canceling the debate unless all four participated.

    There was also a debate scheduled for March 5 at the Reagan library on MSNBC.

    Still not canceled is the March 19, 2012 on PBS at 9pm ET in Portland, Oregon.

    Sammy Finkelman (bbe5c1)

  28. “Of course, blasting Rick Perry as “chicago level corrupt” is OK.”

    Dustin – Everything is big is Texas, including Governor Perry’s cronyism. Of course some people feel it is not permitted to point this out.

    Mr. Feets’ strange obsession with John McCain, including one where no fault was found, is on par with his obsession with Sarah Palin. Your goal, not clear.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  29. It’s a tad annoying that they have 13 debates in 2011, but after the primaries start — when people are watching — they decide they’d rather not.

    There should be one or two debates a month until June, and preferably with questions from Republicans.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  30. annie are you ok are you ok annie

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  31. ‘the beatings have not improved morale,’ Kevin,

    narciso (87e966)

  32. Let’s just say that feets has a special dream of ‘brokering a convention’.

    Icy (730756)

  33. It’s a tad annoying that they have 13 debates in 2011, but after the primaries start — when people are watching — they decide they’d rather not.

    Agreed. They had too many too early.

    Whoever set these up with CNN and MSNBC should be named for ridicule, btw.

    They should have had three debates before the first few primaries, and then several debates between the following primaries as the number of candidates dwindled.

    And enough of this broad debate crap. I want a debate simply on balancing the budget. I want a debate 100% about immigration. I want a debate completely about Iran. Let’s get beyond the vague bullet points.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  34. With Newt having a money man, look for the media to be eat their own, in trying to get that cash.

    sickofrinos (44de53)

  35. I call attention once more to the fact that Grover Cleveland was our last truly Great President. Teddy fails mainly because it was under him that the genesis of today’s woes began in the form of all sorts of new Federal entities and “things the government can do for you.”

    Cleveland, on the other hand, saw things in a manner I argue is more proper (from the wiki):

    In 1887, Cleveland issued his most well-known veto, that of the Texas Seed Bill.[95] After a drought had ruined crops in several Texas counties, Congress appropriated $10,000 to purchase seed grain for farmers there.[95] Cleveland vetoed the expenditure. In his veto message, he espoused a theory of limited government:

    I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the general government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the government, the government should not support the people. The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.

    Grover Cleveland understood the purpose of the Federal government. I don’t believe anyone in that office truly has, since. Some have come close, but most fail utterly.

    I Got Bupkis, Fomenter of "small-l" libertarianism (8e2a3d)

  36. Grover Rocks.

    sickofrinos (44de53)

  37. You note – that only happened during Grover Cleveland’s first term. You never hear this about Grover Cleveland’s second term. Did Congress stop passing these bills, or what?

    Anyway his second term (1893-97) was really a failure. He came in right at the start of the depression (also known as the Panic of 1893)

    He wanted to maintain the gold standard. Nothing got better. He didn’t get the McKinley tariff of 1890 repealed, something he had basically run on.

    His party rejected his policies. It nominated William Jennings Bryan in 1896. The followers of Cleveland were known as Gold Democrats. He made the same kind of “hard money” mistake that Andrew Jackson had made. (Andrew Jackson, because of his insistence on hard money) caused a depression right as his term ended in 1837.

    In the 1890s, the recovery only came because of the discovery of gold in the Transvaal (in South Africa) in 1897 and in Alaska in 1898. The Boer war only broke out after a lot of gold had gone to London. And then Alaska kicked in.

    Sammy Finkelman (bbe5c1)

  38. Comment by Dustin — 2/21/2012 @ 2:03 pm

    I want a debate simply on balancing the budget. I want a debate 100% about immigration. I want a debate completely about Iran. Let’s get beyond the vague bullet points.

    Th best they had was a debate limited to for foreign policy (and I think maybe economic policy) but they still drift into other things.

    Sammy Finkelman (bbe5c1)

  39. And interestingly, the McKinley tariff, helped agitate events in Cuba by 1895,

    narciso (87e966)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0784 secs.