patching...
Update: Want to be a blogger for Wauwatosa Patch? Email james.price@patch.com
Welcome back, Patch Blogger!

Court Ruling Blamed for Record Campaign Spending

2012 was the most expensive election in the "history of the world," and advocate says it's all the U.S. Supreme Court's fault.

 

During a recent news conference at the state Capitol, Lisa Graves, executive director of the Madison-based Center for Media and Democracy, made an astonishing claim.

“This past election, in 2012, was the most expensive election in U.S. history,” Graves said. “In fact, it was the most expensive election in the history of the world.” She later pointed to articles that backed this up, at least in terms of total amount.

The Jan. 22 event, before a mostly empty room, highlighted a new report tracking spending in the 2012 elections, the first since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling in Citizens United. That ruling, which equated money with speech and barred government from restricting “independent” spending on political campaigns, opened two new floodgates: super PACs, which can raise and spend unlimited sums, and nonprofit groups that don’t disclose their funding sources.

The report, “Billion-Dollar Democracy,” was produced by two national nonpartisan groups, Demos and U.S. PIRG Education Foundation, and was released here by the Wisconsin Public Interest Research Group, or WISPIRG. Among its findings:

  • Total spending in the 2012 presidential and congressional races topped $5.2 billion, not including some outlays that fell outside of federal reporting rules. (Others have put the total at about $6 billion.)
  • More than $1 billion came from outside groups — that is, not the candidates or parties. Of this amount, 61 percent was from super PACs and about a third from “dark money” nonprofits.
  • Presidential candidates Barack Obama and Mitt Romney received donations of under $200 from 3.7 million people, for a total of $313 million. This sum was matched by the donations of just the top 32 contributors to super PACs.

“Political power in America is concentrated in the hands of a wealthy and shrinking minority of the population, threatening our democracy,” Joe Rasmussen, of WISPIRG declared.

Also on hand was Mike McCabe, executive director of Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, who said spending on Wisconsin elections more than tripled in the 2010 and 2012 election cycles, from what it had been in 2006 and 2008. Even excluding the estimated $137 million spent on Wisconsin’s 15 recall elections, the total was twice what it had been before.

“We already had a raging campaign arms race before Citizens United,” McCabe remarked. “Now that arms race has been put on steroids.”

Beyond amplifying the volume of a few wealthy voices, McCabe said, spiraling spending on elections “effectively creates a wealth primary,” excluding any candidate who cannot raise substantial funds. And it “shapes what can even be on the public agenda,” leaving issues like poverty unaddressed, because politicians “can’t make money talking about poverty.”

WISPIRG, the Center for Media and Democracy and Wisconsin Democracy Campaign are among a coalition of  10 groups backing a state advisory referendum on whether there should be a U.S. constitutional amendment to undo the effects of Citizens United. According to WISPIRG, 11 states are already on record as supporting this amendment.

What would it take to get this referendum on the ballot in Wisconsin?

When this question was asked at the news conference, spectator Dianne Hesselbein, a newly elected Democratic state representative from Middleton, called out an answer: “A miracle.”

In fact, it would take a majority vote of both houses, and then not be vetoed by the governor.

A spokesman for state Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald, R-Juneau, did not comment on the proposed referendum. Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester, is firmly opposed. He views the Citizens United decision as an affirmation of free speech rights, as did the court majority.

“Wisconsin does not need to put a limit on democracy,” Vos said. “We want to educate our citizens about the issues. It would be unfair to seek to squelch speech because some group is unhappy about the content of it.”

Hesselbein may have sized up the challenge for those on her side of the issue just about right.

About this column: Bill Lueders is the Money and Politics Project director at the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism (www.WisconsinWatch.org). The project, a partnership of the Center and MapLight, is supported by the Open Society Institute. The center collaborates with Wisconsin Public Radio, Wisconsin Public Television, other news media and the UW-Madison School of Journalism and Mass Communication. All works created, published, posted or disseminated by the Center do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of UW-Madison or any of its affiliates. Related Topics: Citizens United, U.S. Supreme Court, campaign finance reform, and campaign spending

Bob McBride

11:23 am on Saturday, February 2, 2013

Was spending for the 2008 election not, also, a record at that particular point in time? How about 2004, 2000, etc?

Reply
Comment_arrow
Patch_comments_icon

Mark Maley

11:30 am on Saturday, February 2, 2013

Good point, Bob. I'm sure we set a record every four years!

Bottom Line

12:24 pm on Saturday, February 2, 2013

On the bright side, it means money was put back into the economy.

What are the real concerns? False advertising? Yes, but limiting expenditures would not be addressing that issue. Gullible public? Yes, but, again, limiting campaign spending does little to address that issue, either.

I think the drama over spending fails to correct issues that should concern people.

Reply

David Tatarowicz

1:53 pm on Saturday, February 2, 2013

It is not the amount of money that concerns me --- it is that so much of it has hidden sources.

Campaign spending limits in this new environment are now shackling the candidates who are not rich and cannot loan their campaigns millions of dollars as rich candidates can, and if they are supported by deep pockets, the people who wear those pockets are hidden behind masks.

I would support the elimination of campaign finance laws that limit the amount a candidate can receive from any one person or organization -- with the Stipulation that all contributors, whether to Candidates, PAC's, Political Action Committees or whatever the entity, must have full disclosure of the contributors and the amounts the give -- in Real Time.

Reply

Vested Interest

2:22 pm on Saturday, February 2, 2013

There are already methods in place to track who contributes to candidates and PAC's listing the dollars they give. I fail to see where listing the amounts in real time would change anyones opinion or position toward a candidate.
The majority of people now vote for candidates based on popularity, likability and salesmanship, and not about much else. Controlling the amount of money candidates raise isn't going to change how people vote. Also keep in mind, no money was taken from anyone by force.

Reply

NObama 2012

4:24 pm on Saturday, February 2, 2013

In 2008 Obama outspent McCain with the help of millions from Da Unions, about 3-1. Where was the outcry from the Progressives about how unfair that was? The Progressives hypocrisy continues to be stunning.

Reply
Comment_arrow

anita

6:04 pm on Tuesday, February 5, 2013

I am a progressive liberal, and yes, you are right! NO money should be shoveled into anyone's campaign. None. There was/and still is an outcry. Where have you been?

TOM

7:09 am on Sunday, February 3, 2013

What about all the taxdollars wasted on enticements for votes scams OBAMA PHONES/and other freebies the taxpayers are stuck paying for

Reply
Comment_arrow

Captain Midnight

4:25 pm on Sunday, February 3, 2013

There is no such thing as an Obama Phone except in your mind and the world of FAUX.

What you think you know about are very minimal service lines that are mandated for all phone companies to provide. These are limited sevice, sometimes only able to call 911 and are provided a a very low price to somehow who can show the need for such service.

You forgot to mention the black helicopters flying around and the re-education camps.

Comment_arrow

Craig

4:37 pm on Sunday, February 3, 2013

Capn is in the dark.
Obama phones are even advertised: if you are collecting SSDI or on Medicaid, you qualify for an Obama phone.
Captain, get yours soon while you still can!

Comment_arrow

Richard Head

8:31 pm on Sunday, February 3, 2013

"The free Obama phone is a program designed to assist less fortunate Americans who cannot afford access to a cell phone. The Federal Lifeline program helps low income families have access to land lines and make emergency phone calls.

If you or a member of your household receives government benefits or if you have an income of less than 135% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines, you automatically qualify for the Lifeline program. Qualifications can vary by state.

http://obamaphone.net/

Mr Lundt

8:00 pm on Sunday, February 3, 2013

If those idiotic ads REALLY influence voters than we deserve the elected officials we get.

I believe many people pretend to be independent and undecided but the reality is much different.

Reply

Steve ®

8:06 pm on Sunday, February 3, 2013

Reason not blamed. Strange word to use for an article title.

Reply

Blair Nielsen

10:43 am on Monday, February 4, 2013

Captain Midnight. Watch this whole video, I'm surprised your not in it, or are you? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUrRjdLIz7c&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Reply
Comment_arrow

Captain Midnight

11:40 am on Monday, February 4, 2013

Obviously you are information deprived. The program which provides phone sevice to certain groups of people (which you erroneously refer to as "Obamaphones" was originated in 1984.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/cellphone.asp

So since Ronald Reagan was President during that time perhaps it would be more accurate to refer to them as "Raygun Phones".

BTW Richard, that video is hosted on an anonymous website amd is not a "legitimate" ad.

"There really is one born every minute".

Blair Nielsen

8:28 pm on Monday, February 4, 2013

Call it what you want, I call it a Obamaphone

Reply
Comment_arrow

Craig

8:54 pm on Monday, February 4, 2013

This is yet another example of a well meaning program that has become abused by the entitlement mentality.
Perfect definition: Obamaphone ie: votes

Comment_arrow

Captain Midnight

9:36 pm on Monday, February 4, 2013

That would be "an" Obamaphone Blair, not "a" Obamaphone.

Just can't fix stupid.

Blair Nielsen

11:28 pm on Monday, February 4, 2013

Captain, did you watch the video I directed you to? Your Dicktator don't want it to be called a raygunphone, he wants all the credit and the votes that come with it. Low information voter, like yourself.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Captain Midnight

11:58 pm on Monday, February 4, 2013

Yes Blair, I watched the video. There is nothing in it to back up your comments regarding any "Dicktator". I can easily find TEA Baggers spewing like the people in that video. How do we know that the people talking in the video weren't "plants"? Why would that first woman be at a Willard Romoney event?

You appear to be the "low information voter" as you haven't had a fact correct yet.

Comment_arrow

Carbon Bigfuut

10:48 am on Tuesday, February 5, 2013

Captain, it doesn't matter if you can easily find teabaggers - they have nothing to do with the subject being discussed.

Blair Nielsen

2:30 pm on Tuesday, February 5, 2013

Don't waste your time bigfuut, he's a msnbc hypnotic zombie

Reply

Leave a comment