Nexus: Chapman's Journal of Law and Public Policy

There has been a great deal of speculation on how the Citizens United decision would affect politics, campaigns, and the outcome of elections in the United States. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission set a new stage for campaigning, allowing unlimited spending by corporations and unions in political campaigns. After the midterm elections that took place last week on November 02, 2010, the focus now rests on how campaign spending shaped the outcome of the election across the nation. The 2010 midterm elections were record-breaking in the realm of campaign spending. Independent groups have reported spending $270 million on the election so far, not including money that was not disclosed to the Federal Election Commission – which is reportedly tens of millions of dollars. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/02/AR2010110201573.html) However, the amount of money that was poured into last week’s election did not solely come from interest groups and corporations; this election also featured “an unusually large crop of moguls who sought to ease their way into power” by spending millions of dollars from their own personal fortunes on their campaigns. Unfortunately for most of these candidates, their plan to pay their way into power failed spectacularly.

Most self-funded candidates essentially wasted obscene amounts of money in vain – The Center for Responsive Politics has calculated that out of 58 candidates who spent $500,000 or more of their own fortunes on federal campaigns in the 2010 elections, fewer than one in five won – a surprising statistic considering the dollar amounts spent in the recent election. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/03/AR2010110308584.html?nav=hcmoduletmv) The most notable of these candidates is Republican Meg Whitman of California. Whitman spent a whopping $175 million of her own fortune, shattering previous spending records, only to lose to Democrat Jerry Brown in the race for governor. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/03/AR2010110308584.html?nav=hcmoduletmv) Other “rich losers” consisted of Linda McMahon who spent $47 million on her Connecticut Senate campaign, former Hewlett-Packard chief executive Carly Fiorina who spent $5.5 million, and GOP businessman John Raese of West Virginia who spent merely $4.7 million (“mere” as compared to Meg Whitman’s overwhelming spending). (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/03/AR2010110308584.html?nav=hcmoduletmv) While it seems possible that these candidates’ outcomes appear to be the result of ‘bad luck’ or some other unexplainable excuse, this does not seem to be the case - since 1990, only five of the top 20 self-financed candidates have won according to the Center for Responsive Politics. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/03/AR2010110308584.html?nav=hcmoduletmv) Taking these numbers into consideration, it is hard to believe that all this money is spent in vain, or rather, that candidates still continue to spend this kind of money on campaigns – especially money that comes from their own accounts.

This election also shattered records regarding political advertising specifically. If you live in California as I do, it was impossible to turn on the TV during the past month without watching some sort of political advertisement during every commercial break. I imagine that this was the case in states throughout the nation given the current state of the country’s economy, job market etc. Politicians and outside groups alike both purchased billions of dollars of air time on television, making October the busiest month in history for political advertisements on TV. (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/spending-political-ads-sets-record-october/story?id=12070792) The number of political ads aired on television went up from 1.41 million in October 2008 to 1.48 million this year, with cities such as Cleveland and Columbus, Ohio, reporting a slew of political ads. The Nielson Company found that approximately 1 of every 4 paid television ads that was aired in both cities in October came from a political candidate or an outside political group; politicians and third party groups in the same state also spent an estimated $564 million in this election. (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/spending-political-ads-sets-record-october/story?id=12070792)

The upside of all this spending – aside from candidates being elected into positions that they were gunning for – is the boost the election has given businesses and the economy recently. Although my previous statement might not be true for some candidates (as mentioned above), the 2010 election season brought in a tremendous amount of money for businesses that the candidates relied on in carrying out their campaigns. Campaigns poured in billions of dollars on a wide range of companies, such as broadcast companies, polling firms, restaurants, banks, consultancy firms and media buyers. According to a Washington Post article entitled “For many businesses, 2010 midterm election campaign was a winner” by Dan Eggen and T.W. Farnam, candidates in the recent election spent at least $50 million on catering and liquor, $3.2 million at country clubs and golf courses, and $500,000 on pizza, coffee and doughnuts. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/07/AR2010110703929.html?nav=hcmoduletmv&sid=ST2010110800177) As you can see, campaigns contributed money to businesses in various fields, helping out companies when they most need it (based on the current unemployment rate of 10%). The “biggest winners of all” were broadcasting companies, which are expected to take in approximately $2.5 billion in advertisement revenue from federal, state and local campaigns – which is not surprising considering the number of political ads in October itself, not to mention the election as a whole.

Therefore, while the debate continues over the issue of campaign finance and its effect on elections – and consequently, the future of the country – it is clear that while candidates did or did not achieve the results they were hoping for, at least their spending provided companies and the economy a slight boost at a time when this type of boost was critical. Although this ‘boost’ is obviously extremely meek compared to the type of change we desperately need, at least candidates provided businesses with the help they desperately needed – even if corporations didn’t help candidates win positions they wanted.