Citizens United doesn't seem to be any sort of inflection point. The big jump was during the Bush/Kerry election, ironically the first Presidential cycle during which the 2002 campaign finance law ultimately struck down by Citizens United was in place. Spending actually went down during the Clinton/Trump contest, after the law was struck down, and Trump won despite Clinton spending almost twice as much.
I'm more curious about congressional runs than the presidential ones. The presidential run is too big and quirky to ever be truly controlled by money alone. But with hundreds of congressional campaigns up for grabs, that seems like a tractable problem to solve with cash.
Also, at this point most of the money can be spent outside the campaigns entirely. Robert Mercer can just run his simulations and use bots and paid posters to move public opinion around. He doesn't need to work directly with the campaign at all.
Well in 2008 Obama came out of nowhere and outspent Clinton even in the primaries.
So while it won't win you an election it sure can put you on the map. Trump is an odd case I'm not sure if the actual spending is truely accounted for, but he just seemed to get as much free press as you can.
Trump is also the first candidate that was really hooked into every social media outlet, and did so correctly so in effect they did much more with their money than the Dems.
In presidential elections the Democrats tend to tie or outspend the republicans, for congressional and especially local elections they seem to fall behind.
My sense is that Obama/Axelrod won because of next gen volunteer coordination software. And Trump/Mercer won because of next gen media-sentiment modeling software. Both strategies played to the candidate's strengths.
Crony capitalism stinks, but the first amendment protects freedom of the press. You are crossing into very dangerous territory when you limit the right to express one's political opinion, even if it is corrupt.
Perhaps a better idea would be to have the voters decide on how much a senator should get paid after his term is completed. That might help keep them more true to their campaign promises.
Perhaps a "better" better idea would be constitutional amendments stating a) spending money is not protected speech and b) corporations are not citizen and do not enjoy the rights and freedoms outlined by the Constitution.
Of course, you're more likely to peer through a telescope at one of Jupiter's moons and find a copy of your resume -- than you are to ever see either one of those.
8 comments
[ 3.9 ms ] story [ 23.5 ms ] threadCitizens United doesn't seem to be any sort of inflection point. The big jump was during the Bush/Kerry election, ironically the first Presidential cycle during which the 2002 campaign finance law ultimately struck down by Citizens United was in place. Spending actually went down during the Clinton/Trump contest, after the law was struck down, and Trump won despite Clinton spending almost twice as much.
Also, at this point most of the money can be spent outside the campaigns entirely. Robert Mercer can just run his simulations and use bots and paid posters to move public opinion around. He doesn't need to work directly with the campaign at all.
In presidential elections the Democrats tend to tie or outspend the republicans, for congressional and especially local elections they seem to fall behind.
Perhaps a better idea would be to have the voters decide on how much a senator should get paid after his term is completed. That might help keep them more true to their campaign promises.
Of course, you're more likely to peer through a telescope at one of Jupiter's moons and find a copy of your resume -- than you are to ever see either one of those.