During the 1896 presidential election, Mark Hanna broke fundraising records and set a new standard for campaign management. Broadly speaking, he efficiently solicited America's industrial and banking barons - including former classmate, John D. Rockefeller - for miniscule percentages of wealth in order to flood the nation with pamphlets, fliers and the occasional parade for the eventual victory of William McKinley. As inequality increased, campaigns began concentrating on getting the elite to woo the working class.
Today, the election landscape is shifting again as a result of rising socioeconomic disparity. After the 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision opened the floodgates for Super PAC influence, campaign finance entered another new era dominated by the elite. Yet the 2012 presidential election does not seem to be disproportionately swayed by large donors. The impact of Citizens United will be most strongly felt in elections of a smaller or more focused scale. This is why we strongly advocate for either constitutional reform or state-level regulation before large money can become truly corrupting on a national scale.
For the first time since 1976, both candidates, President Barack Obama and Republican opponent Mitt Romney, have rejected public finance. In 2008, turning down federal campaign funding was feasible only for Democratic presidential candidate Obama because of his unique appeal to small donors. This year, both the Obama and Romney campaigns have embraced Super PAC war chests to the tune of approximately $593 million so far.
The public reaction to this trend has been highly negative. A Pew Research Center poll indicates that 78 percent of registered voters who are well informed of public finance laws see Super PACs as a negative influence. There was no significant variation for either party, showing disdain across the board.
But in terms of real effect on the current national election, it seems that Super PAC money has failed to be as influential as its detractors predicted. Most of the Super PAC money spent thus far has gone to television advertising, especially in battleground states. Super PAC ads and the traditional campaign ads have completely seized airwaves in states like Iowa, where viewers have to sit through six times as many ads as there were in 2008, and Ohio, where your favorite half-hour show will feature as many as 10 attack ads from either side.
For any normal citizen, this kind of campaigning is utterly ineffective. Political ads have always been cliche and melodramatic, so you can assume that a constant stream of them will fall on deaf ears. Campaign officials are finding that campaign "ads have reached the point of diminishing returns."
So what will all the rich donors do with their money? Sheldon Adelson, the Las Vegas casino owner known for his commitment to Super PACs, has donated almost $40 million to Republican candidates. He certainly will not be pleased to hear that his generous contributions have essentially been wasted on high-cost commercial blocs that do not translate to additional voters.
Super PAC money has been more effective in elections of partisan focus and smaller scale. During the Republican primaries, independent ads were extremely nasty and strongly swayed members in one party.
In state-level elections, large money can have a bigger impact on funding regional voter research and direct mail and calls, tactics that are much more effective than television ads. As long as Citizens United stands and our nation's elected officials become ever more intertwined with corporate and elite donor interests, we stand for constitutional public finance reform on a national scale, such as the elimination of Super PACs, or state-level regulations on spending to preempt the imbalance of the next Mark Hanna.
Editorials are written by The Herald's editorial page board. Send comments to editorials@browndailyherald.com.
