EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- One American Who Isn't For Sale
- Transcript: Today's Live Q&A With NSA Leaker, Edward Snowden
- Remembering Satyajit Ray’s Hirok Rajar Deshe: On Edward Snowden, Resistance and Inverted Totalitarianism
- Obama Cans Regulator Who Crossed Wall Street
- Pentagon Bracing for Public Dissent Over Climate and Energy Shocks
Popular content
Today's Top News
The $4 Billion Election: Spending Records Shattered as Republicans Benefit from Late Cash Surge
Center for Responsive Politics predicts midterms could cost nearly $4 billion
WASHINGTON – This year’s federal election will obliterate spending records for a midterm contest, surpassing the previous high-water mark set in 2006 by about $1 billion, the Center for Responsive Politics predicts less than a week before voters cast their ballots.
Whereas the romanticism of 'one person-one vote' has long captured the imagination of US citizens, it becomes increasingly difficult to hide the enormous negative impact that shadow money plays on what is surely a fragile democracy. (Credit: Darren Hauck/Getty Images) That’s
enough cash to run the city of Pittsburgh for two years. Buy every
resident of Topeka a nice used car. Or treat each and every American to a
Big Mac and fries.
And such record-breaking spending is largely fueled by the confluence of two powerful political forces. First, dozens of competitive, often contentious congressional campaigns are being waged, providing incentive for record spending. Second, recent federal court decisions have armed corporations, unions and ideological organizations with the firepower to spend as much as they want, whenever they want on political messages saying just about anything they want, no matter how scathing or partisan.
“We knew this election could
make spending history, but the rate of growth is stunning,” said Sheila
Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics and
its website, OpenSecrets.org.
“This kind of money in 2010 makes the 2000 presidential election –
hardly a distant memory – look like a bargain at $3.1 billion. And tens
of millions of dollars of it is now coming from organizations who, by
law, need not disclose their donors. It’s now more difficult than ever
for voters to determine whether the outside groups flooding their
television and radio airwaves with political messages are doing so for
any reason other than promoting their own, narrow set of special
interests.”
Republicans have more quickly adapted to this new
campaign finance landscape ahead of an election in which they’re angling
to recapture the U.S. House of Representatives, if not the U.S. Senate,
too. And their potential success at the polls may result in a marked
shift in federal policy, painting the U.S. Capitol a bright shade of red
after four years tinged with blue.
Identifiably conservative
organizations are spending more than $2 on advertisements and other
communications for every $1 liberal organizations do. While corporations
are behind much of this money, many of these companies have skirted
public scrutiny by laundering their cash through intermediary
organizations, which often sport nondescript names and don’t
immediately, if ever, reveal who funds them.
The three national
Democratic party committees do enjoy slight fund-raising advantages over
their Republican counterparts this election cycle. And in some of the
cycle’s most competitive races, Democrats have built notable financial
resources that remain the envy of their Republican opponents.
But
nationwide, House Republican congressional candidates themselves have
so far raised and spent more money through the middle of October than
Democrats – in House races, raising $502 million to $461.5 million, and
spending $407.3 million to $397.3 million.
In Senate races,
Republicans are out-raising Democrats $400 million to $347 million,
although Democrats have spent a tiny fraction more. A key factor in
these realities: Major industries and special interest areas that had
just months ago primarily bankrolled Democrats have suddenly flocked to
the GOP – a phenomenon that the Center finds has only increased in speed
as Election Day draws closer.
Conservatively, the current
election cycle will cost $3.7 billion, the Center predicts, reaffirming
an initial cost-of-election prediction from earlier this year. The
Center now forecasts, however, that final spending numbers for the full
cycle will likely flirt with the $4 billion mark.
As of today,
the Center calculates that Republicans have raised $1.64 billion to
Democrats’ $1.59 billion. These figures include money raised by
candidates and parties, and the money reported by outside organizations.
The party split for outside money include independent expenditures on
behalf of or against Democrats or Republicans; electioneering
communications based on the general ideological leanings of the
organization; and receipts by 527 organizations that are not already
included elsewhere.
Regardless of the final figures, they’ll be
profoundly large: In 2006, the federal midterm election cost $2.85
billion, while in 2002, it cost $2.18 billion. The 1998 election cost
just $1.61 billion. Races during the 2004 presidential election cycle
are tallied at $4.14 billion – only a small fraction more than the
predicted cost of the 2010 midterm cycle. The 2008 presidential election
cycle, at nearly $5.3 billion, remains the most expensive overall.
The
Center’s findings are largely based on fund-raising data reported to
the Federal Election Commission into this month by all candidates for
federal office, party committees, political action committees and
federally focused 527 committees. This conservative estimate also
includes independent expenditures on advertising and get-out-the-vote
efforts by outside political action committees and other organizations
to support and oppose candidates.
Read the Center for Responsive Politics' extended report here.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...



24 Comments so far
Show AllThis money feeds the machine, or as Ken Kesey labeled it in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, The Combine. While the sociopaths and psychopaths plunder and profit, "We the People" are chewed up and spit out!
$4 billion into BIG media, from corporations, hedge funds, slanted non-profits and foundations, etc., feeding into a completely corrupt political system, that does NOT serve "We the People." All justly allowed by a judicial system that does NOT serve "We the People," either.
And, we know that the corporations have NO interest (morally or financially) in anything other than profits -- which trump people every time. Think of what $4 billion could help to provide -- if humanity, with a true sense of compassion and empathy, was served rather than the greed and avarice of faux personhood and corporations.
The U.S. political system is completely corrupt, as are almost every single elected representative/senator who sits in the supposed hallowed (hollowed) chambers. The "change" we were promised -- for those who believed -- keeps coming, doesn't it?
Being from another country, it is beyond any sane reckoning how the American public can be so completely brain dead or 'brain washed' as to bring in the republicans again after the unbelievable disaster of what they did in the criminal Bush years! I can only gasp in utter horror as to the efficacy of the psychological warfare that has been perpetrated on the american people for the past decade....actually longer, but very intensely during this time period and with exact precision!
:) Can't believe you are so surprised, actually. The American sheeple have notoriously short memories, and about as much interest in politics that shape their lives and futures as a coffee table. Rather than actually do the research on the candidates, they simply vote for their favorite "team" (i.e., Republicans or Democrats) without fail, no matter what, except for the "swing voters" who don't have a favorite "team," and they - for the most part - will never deviate from the "One or the other" mindset - Rethugs or Dumbocrats. If they are pissed at the Democrats' governing, they switch to Republican. If they are pissed at the Republicans' governing, they switch to Democrat. The thought of voting for a third party candidate never enters their little brains, because "third party candidates don't have any chance of winning." And - in America - winning is what everything is all about. Even if it means electing the same party that fucked the country over repeatedly the last time they were in power, at least it beats "wasting my vote" on someone "who won't win!!"
Make sense? No? Of course it doesn't. We're talking about the United States here.
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag, carrying a cross."
Keep in mind that a single voter in Wyoming is worth 80 voters in California, as far as the all-powerful U.S. Senate is concerned. So, the trick is to convince the cowboys in Wyoming that they are cowboys (not hard), and that so are Republicans, because Republicans espouse personal integrity, do-it-yourself, make-it-on-your-own, etc. These philosophies are deeply attractive to all cowboys, being a romantic theme in their history and literature, movies, etc. You also drive this theme home on TV news channels, like Fox News: no handouts, personal responsibility, etc, etc. Well, in such a fiction, where does government belong? Answer: nowhere, as Fox tells these cowboys again and again. Now, at the same time that this is going on, you make sure one of the few things the Federal government does 'right' over the decades is to give generously to Wyoming. Spend more than they give back in taxes, and do this for 80 years. That's why when you go to these rural states you find well-paved roads, excellent bridges, nice dams, electricity even in the most remote corners: everything seems to work and everyone is under the impression that they 'did it all themselves'.
So, the theme is simple: Make sure Wyoming voters are benefitting from federal socialism, for most of the last 80 years. Then tell them they hate socialism, can't stand it. Walla! Solid Republican voters. People told that their ethic of 'personal responsibility' works, but prevented from seeing where it actually leads by a continual influx of Federal funds, are going to be enthusiastic Republicans. Thus, for a minimum of expenditure, two secure GOP seats in the all-important Senate. Ironically, the GOP gets a lot of help from Democrats in this, because democrats are bleeding hearts that don't mind taxing themselves 'a little extra' to help out America's more rural and impoverished corners. Perhaps even more pernicious, the DNC is not, in my view, entirely unhappy these are GOP states, since it also works for the corporatocracy, and needs someone to blame for its ineffectiveness.
Perform same in Alaska, Utah, Nevada, the South (not hard, there). Just keep overtaxing Blue state residents, and spending the difference on Red State residents, but keep selling HARD the ethic of 'do-it-yourself' to the latter (that doesn't work for the former cuz they can SEE how dependent they are on the 'social contract': when it breaks down the fallout is all around their urban setting). And eventually you have full and permanent GOP leaning states, ready to do whatever the corporatocracy wants. And, best of all, surprisingly immune to reality (prevented as they are from seeing it by one of the longest, most consistent socialist programs in America).
UBREW: This analysis is better than half of what Lakoff has published in this forum. Nice work.
Thank you. I thought I beat it to death a little too much, but I just wanted to reiterate that rural Americans are told repeatedly that 'those city-dwellers on welfare' are, through socialism, robbing them. When in fact, throughout the 20th century the socialist tide generally runs the other way. This is for the obvious reason that if a city wasn't a net wealth generator, it wouldn't be a city for long: there's no other reason to live in one.
The spending is out of control.
But dishonestly trying to portray the republican sppending while not counting some of the democratic spending is typical. Add the Union spending in and see what you get.
mite, I have to assume you are joking. Unions being able to spend on the same scale as corporations? Please.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303339504575566481761790288.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories
""We're the big dog," said Larry Scanlon, the head of AFSCME's political operations. "But we don't like to brag.""
"The spending is out of control.
But dishonestly trying to portray the republican sppending while not counting some of the democratic spending is typical. Add the Union spending in and see what you get."
Mighty, I needed a laugh today. Thanks .
Capitalism turns everything into a commodity, including the political system. The solution? Time to change the system.
The system is broken. Neither party is worthy of your vote.
There is only one way to change the system. Nothing, absolutely nothing, will change until the system collapses, until civilization (syphilization) is brought down!
Kill the corps.! Kill syphilization! Do it now!
Don’t know how? Read Derrick Jensen’s book ENDGAME, Volume 1: The Problem with Civilization and Volume 2: Resistance.
Earth First in All Things and Thoughts, Deeds and Decisions!
EarthHugger
Most people on CD probably noticed that last week it was reported that $3 billion would be spent on this current election cycle. Today, the amount of money spent is at $4 billion.
Going, going, going...UP and UP and UP as the days pass.
And it's done in broad daylight,
without fear,
everyone gets to know
who's boss,
cause it's all legal like.
There appears to be an increasingly widespread realization that the system itself is defective in terms of producing what ordinary Americans (i.e., natural persons) actually want. However, with popular wants being so radically divided, those systemic roots of the problem are never actually addressed and they keep right on serving their instigators every time.
Divide and conquer appears to be a winning imperial strategy at home as well as abroad and sufficient popular unity to successfully address the underlying issues seems as unlikely domestically as anywhere else. In the circumstances, total collapse may indeed be the only ultimate hope, if that's the right word.
Democracy Inc. the best money can buy.
Sorry to repeat myself, but at this point, we should auction off political offices to the highest bidder. It should be televised of course.
At least an auction would be more transparent and fair than what we have now.
For example:
Senate seat: starting bid: $200 million
House seat: starting bid: 50 million.
Governor: starting bid 100 million.
Instead of the Corporate Media getting the money it can be donated to charity.
SOCIALIST: I agree.
For the kind of money being tossed around, how long will it be before politicians head into poor neighborhoods to pass out five-dollar bills in an attempt to purchase votes on the low end, thus doing away with the cost of glossy TV ads?
Or the method used in ancient Athens when they were striving for equality; sortition; elections by lot, everyone is included.
There would be no campaigning, minimal expense for the state, true representation by the people, and no long term cartels. One term and your service is over.
Crack heads would be better than what we have.
Their needs and wants are smaller.
Sortition.
I learned a new word today. Thanks. :D
and not a bad idea
We may need to chip in a few bucks for D. Kucinich and B. Frank.
Good to see the USA plowing out of recession with powerhouse enterprises such as the electioneering circus and the home foreclosure industry.....
This election is a plebiscite for the future of America. Do we want to keep our roots in the constitution and small govt. or forget about that old fashion model and move into the future with a newer idea of how this country should be..
Thanks to Chief Justice Roberts only the corporations have a vote in US elections. Now all the subjects, nee citizens, are not counted at all.
Glad to see the mention of sortition (random selection), above.
Consider this entry to FAQ from www.TheCommonLot.com -- website of "The Common Lot: Next Step for Democracy"
What are the downsides of electoral balloting?
First of all, of course the ballot is preferred to the bullet.
The ballot however requires a certain type of person to put him- or herself up for candidacy. Such a person is necessarily of a particular psychological profile. That profile is only a small sub-section of the populace. Balloting -- in and of itself -- prevents realization of government 'by' the people.
Furthermore there are the obvious drawbacks: financial wherewithal, rhetorical adroitness, media visage.
Finally, the campaign is a contest. Many are attracted to the blood sport of it. That contest unfortunately drives the candidates to desperate measures -- not only the attack ads that poison civil discourse, but also the unavoidable compulsion to make promises and to take positions whose purpose is merely to win the election.
These reasons lead us to believe that sortitional selection of policy-making bodies will be the equitable, inclusive and wise 'next step for democracy'.