ترول ایرانی

گالری عکس

Citizens United: All the Worry, None of the Effect

Well, this is a lit­tle egg on the face of the likes of the super-liberals and Russ Feingold-types, so at least there is that going for free speech in the 21st Century.

Out­side money was the dog that barked but did not bite. Obama and other Democ­rats had long made dire pre­dic­tions about the poten­tial impact of Cit­i­zens United v. Fed­eral Elec­tion Com­mis­sion, which allowed cor­po­ra­tions and unions to spend unlim­ited funds on elec­tions and cre­ated an entirely new class of wealthy polit­i­cal groups.

The money did dra­mat­i­cally change the focus and char­ac­ter of many cam­paigns. Can­di­dates up and down the bal­lot were forced to spend more time than ever rais­ing dona­tions, while polit­i­cal adver­tis­ing funded by out­siders was even more neg­a­tive than before. Wealthy donors were so cen­tral to Romney’s cam­paign that a swarm of pri­vate lux­ury jets caused a traf­fic jam at Boston’s air­port just prior to the nominee’s Tues­day night elec­tion party.

Its last­ing impact will be that it fueled the public’s dis­gust about pol­i­tics,” said David Don­nelly of the Pub­lic Cam­paign Action Fund, which favors stricter campaign-finance regulations.

Yet super PACs and secre­tive non­profit groups — which spent up to $10 mil­lion a day on the pres­i­den­tial race alone — couldn’t move the nee­dle far enough to pre­vail in nearly any of the big races they tar­geted. Out­side money allowed Rom­ney to be com­pet­i­tive with Obama, but that meant the can­di­date had no direct con­trol over much of the spend­ing, while his own cam­paign was plagued by high per­son­nel costs and lav­ish con­sult­ing fees.

In the end, the two sides reached a kind of dreary equi­lib­rium, clog­ging the air­waves with so many attack ads that Repub­li­can groups began air­ing spots in Cal­i­for­nia and other deep-blue states where they had lit­tle chance of vic­tory. By the end of Octo­ber, more than a mil­lion com­mer­cials had been broad­cast in a pres­i­den­tial race that remained close to a dead heat for much of the year.

Lib­er­als will still be given dog-whistle phrases like “Koch Broth­ers” and “Cit­i­zens United” to encour­age out­rage at out­side spend­ing in pol­i­tics — unless it’s from unions, that’s their money, dammit! — even when all it is being proven to show at the moment is that it is just more noise to be sac­ri­ficed to the chan­nel changer or fast for­ward on the DVR.

Be Socia­ble, Share!
  • fred

    Now I see Why You Call your­self the Michael Barone of Wis Poi­itics!
    You both are stuck with very old ideas :)
    He told us to expect a Rom­ney Land­slide!
    The influ­ence of the Kochs was never going to hurt the Obama cam­paign. Ask Jess king in FDL about the 1.5 Mil­lion the Koch’s spent on her State Sen­ate cam­paign
    Down Bal­lot is where the Kopch’s and Oth­ers made a huge difference.

  • kev­in­bin­ver­sie

    You must have missed all those Greater Wis­con­sin Com­mit­tee ads I see…

  • fred

    Nope Saw Lots Of Them.

    But you aren’t really try­ing to com­pare the $ spent are you?
    Clearly you don’t get out of your GOP News desk Office Much :)

  • greencarman2000

    Please show me where in the Con­sti­tu­tion that corporations–artificially cre­ated entities–are cit­i­zens with polit­i­cal free speech pro­tec­tions. Eco­nomic free speech, yes…political free speech…no.

  • Robert

    Go fuck your green car in the gashole.

  • greencarman2000

    Sorry, Robert, I don’t speak Neanderthal.