Tuesday’s Florida Republican Primary provided a taste of the wider 2012 presidential campaign season and it is not a pretty picture.
According to the Campaign Media Analysis Group, the negative ads on the Florida airwaves hit a new high for political campaigns at 92%. While negative campaigning is not a new phenomenon in politics, the increase in the sheer volume of negative spots certainly makes one pause.
The cause of this increase is simply the rise of super PACs.
Of the 11,586 television spots that aired the week before the Florida Republican primary, super PACs financed over 50%. Candidates now have an excuse when it comes to the negative rhetoric on the campaign trail — “it’s not me, it’s the super PAC that supports me.”
Voter turnout for the contest was well below 2008 levels signaling that many voters felt alienated by the process. Hence, what the last week has shown is that something must be done to rein in this type of overwhelming television campaign that threatens to take the substance out of a potentially exciting election season.
The Center for Responsive Politics reports that super PACs alone have spent over $45 million this election cycle. To put that into perspective, these same organizations have already utilized two-thirds of what they spent the entire 2010 election cycle and it is only the beginning of the primary season.
Outrageous amounts of money are flowing in politics through these super PACs and that most likely means that corruption and scandals are right around the corner. This atmosphere allows special interests and wealthy individuals to have an even greater impact on elections than in the past. One example is of a $5 million check from billionaire Sheldon Adelson sent to Winning Our Future, a pro-Gingrich super PAC, right before the South Carolina primary, money which ultimately helped Gingrich achieve victory in that primary. While not to single Gingrich out, every candidate has a similar story and what it shows is that powerful interests can and are thwarting the will of the people.
Super PACs operate within a loosely regulated framework that has no mechanisms to keep them accountable and to stop the misinformation, as they supposedly operate independent of any official candidate. Even the January 31 disclosure of donors was fraught with loopholes and a cloak of secrecy, as only the donors from the last quarter of 2011 were revealed. The Republican primary will be over by the time we find out who contributed during the actual primary season and this issue will occur again during the general election campaign.
Instead of furthering the money revolution in politics, candidates should actively move in the opposite direction and take a stand for transparency and accountability in campaigning. They should follow the example set by Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown and his democratic rival for his Senate seat, Elizabeth Warren, with their recent agreement to curb the influence of outside groups in what will arguably be the most hotly contested Senate race this election cycle. It may not be a perfect plan but it is a good start to finding a solution to outside spending and more importantly, keep the campaign about the issues that are important to Americans and clear of petty politics.
Photo Credit: DonkeyHotey
The Discussion
The Citizens United decision really messed up the whole thing. This means it might likely take a Constitutional amendment to fix the campaigning process and limit how money can influence elections. With America divided more than ever today, I don't see how that could happen anytime soon.
I believe the Ads need to all be cut! When no one has to take responsibility for what is said they are of no use! I think we should watch them actually debate each other 1 on 1. Since there are 4 of them have 1 a wk. So they each get a chance to debate eachother. We'll get to know them honestly!
Joseph,
Wouldn't it be nice, but I'm not placing bets for it to happen. Our campaign process at all levels is driven by exposure and how well candidates can spread the negative about their opponent. Even local races take hundreds of thousands of dollars. The SCOTUS decision on Citizens United perpetuates this process. You're asking candidates to address the issues. As long as CU stands and special interests are allowed to control the process, I don't believe this will happen either. We must be optimistic that American ingenuity will figure out a way around CU; Montana may be the lead. http://www.policymic.com/articles/3754/states-should-follow-montana-s-challenge-of-supreme-court-decision-citizens-united
1 Replies
" . . . move in the opposite direction and take a stand for transparency and accountability in campaigning" Yeah I voted for Obama, because he promised more transparency in government, now the ACLU is suing him for not releasing info, promises are useless, change the laws, and get the crooks out.
This account has been disabled.
You got it right, Lester, but ultimately we have to look to Congress to amend the Constitution and/or pass legislation to reverse SCOTUS' 2010 Citizens' United ruling. The following Congresspeople and Senators have proposed legislation so far: Representative Donna Edwards; Senator Tom Udall and Representative Betty Sutton; Representative Ted Deutsch and Senator Bernie Sanders; Representative Jim McGovern; Representative John Yarmuth and Republican Representative Walter Jones; Representative Keith Ellison.
1 Replies
Mr. Lester- Very good essay. What is most distressing is that a handful of people, through Super Pacs, are controlling our elections. The impact that TV advertising has on the electorate cannot be overstated. So, the candidate who has the most money can sling the most mud and win most of the time.
There is no advantage to either side. When Romney goes head to head with Obama in the general election, the negativity and cash being spent on TV ads will be overbearing. They will rip each other to shreds. Our political system, because of a very unfortunate ruling by SCOTUS, is in decay.
1 Replies