Tuesday was more than just consensus on political identity, it was also the first major election where the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, and its subsequent super-PACs, came into play. The result: spending absurds amount of money on a given candidate doesn't guarantee their election, according to analyses from Reuters and The Washington Post.
Consider Florida's Senate race: Republican challenger Connie Mack attracted $15.2 million more in outside money than Democratic incumbent Bill Nelson, who gathered $4.8 million, according the Center for Public Integrity; Mack still lost.
Republicans and Democrats were equally armed in outside spending, according to the analyses, making this election the most expensive ever with over $1 billion spent by both super-PACs and non-profit organizations. CPI's early break-down also suggests there's no clear correlation between spending and results.
But super-PAC spending does seem to have an impact on state elections, according to CPI, where several close gubernatorial races remain to be decided.
Opponents to Citizens United tell Reuters that the results of one election is irrelevant, and the law's long-term impact remains to be seen.
Not really, it was just annoying to see all the negative ads over and over again. I think it's funny that we can't tax the rich even a single percentage point more because it will negatively affect the economy, but they have no problem spending $6 billion trying to buy an election. We should tax campaign contributions... heavily.
@mimi57 Ha! Union spending was a tiny sliver of what was spent on behalf of Romney. And total spending by outside groups for Democrats made up LESS THAN 25% of all outside spending. The truth is that unions are just a shell of what they once were, but conservative media has you guys believing they're the big, bad boogeyman. So funny. The delusion is hilarious.
Yes, I was. Just because Obama was outspent in money raised, doesn't mean he wasn't sitting on a pile of money too. It's for sell every year and there are only two legitimate buyers with the cash to buy it.
I think Allen West is the best example of how little. He moved to a new more favorable to the GOP district. His opponent was a new comer with no record. West outspent his opponent 15 to 1 spending more than has ever been spent in a house race and it appears that he lost. This being FL West is demanding a recound. Karl Rove, The Koch Brothers and Sheldon Aldenson didn't get much of a return on their investment of millions and millions of dollars. The Union contribution was minimal in comparison.
Actually, the Koch brothers, Adelson, and Rove and their Super PACs got spanked in this election. They spent hundreds of millions of dollars, all told, to elect extreme conservatives and defeat Obama, and got nothing for their money. It makes me feel all warm and fuzzy . . . .
@Denizen_Kate Just saw a report on another site Rove's PAC collected ~$300mil spent $270mil. So Karl took 10% off the top. Shelly & His wife $57 mil and he's still looking at fed money laundering indictment
Citizens United won the election for Obama by pissing off the base thus motivating them to push even harder. Karl Rove, koch bros... I thank you for spending all that money to help the president be re-elected.
The fact is that ads, debates, basically the entire campaign has no effect on probably about 90 percent of the electorate. Those people know for whom they are voting and there is nothing anyone can say to change their minds.
Yes. By reducing the playing field to the two men with the deepest pockets. Everyone else, spending your own money to run, the American dream is dead. No little boy, no little girl, you can't be President. Unless you have lots and lots of rich friends. Oh and Santa isn't real either, while we're at it.
The bottom line is that we all owe a great deal to the anonymous wait staffer who had the forethought to put his/her cellphone camera on the table and push the record button at the Romney fundraiser last May. That guy (or girl) who might not have even been paid minimum wage did something that overcame the over $1Billion spent by anonymous special interest groups. He/she showed Romney as who he truly he was behind closed doors with his wealth donor pals. The sweet irony of it all is that person is almost certainly part of the 47% that Romney made famous.
Honestly, it was my prayer that God would expose and show people who Willard is. I think he has some self-reflection to do. Given his financial freedom and education I was not impressed with his lack of ideas and coherence. The man has been running for that office for at least 6 years (for crying out loud).
I could list a slew of reasons he lost that had nothing to do with him being Republican. I will spare this site most of those details; but a few key things (at least for me) are as follows: the first has to do with simply being himself and not being a parrot for other people.
If financial freedom does not allow one to speak his/her mind freely, then being wealthy is over rated.
Secondly, It's the lies that got me. There is no way on earth you can: 1) tell logical thinking people lies, 2) withold key information about taxes and your plans; while at the same time telling them to "TRUST YOU" and expect to be SUCCESSFUL. The man's thinking was flawed from the beginning and throughout. Then these other plutocrats invested on a bad product. Do they lack a television set, radio, and not have access to the internet or newspapers? How could they have seen and heard Willard and invest the way they did?
WOW ... it must really take a whole lot more than smarts to get wealthy!!(hahahahahaha) It also goes to show they think the regular "Joe" is stupid. I'm glad we showed them!!
LOL....all of that money ---And they still lost!..LOL....Just goes to show you...that Americans won't be swayed by the propaganda of the 1%. The plutocrats lost this time, and Americans won!. Chalk one up for Democracy!
The Citizen's United case cost both Romney and Obama my vote. I refuse to consider any candidate that benefits from that ruling as a potential vote. In one tiny way that case did affect the election, as I cast my vote for a third party candidate that did not benefit from the ruling.
It made the election much much closer than it should have been. Obama has stronger community support than Romney by far. Romney had to pay a lot more (double!) for staff while Obama had more volunteers. 98% of Obama's direct contribution came from people giving less than $200 each.
Of course it did, it used to be big news 20 years ago that Clinton spent 20 million dollars on his Presidential Campaign. If you spent 20 million this past year then you wouldn't win a senate seat! Corporations are not people. Take the money out of politics, give both candidates the same amount of money, allow no political advertising until 1 week before the election and no outside interest is allowed to make political advertising at all. We are corrupted and this needs to end now. It's bad enough that Fox News is a propaganda machine that has ruined the reputation of my party(republicans) as lying jerks. Which is another thing, Fox News should not be allowed to be called News, they are PROPAGANDA. Change your name Fox to something more relevant like Fox Extremist "News"