The Center for Competitive Politics studied political spending in the 2016 election cycle, concluding that the data demonstrates strongly -- yet again -- that spending money does not buy electoral victory:
“The idea that money buys elections was disproven again last night by Donald Trump,” said CCP President David Keating. “Trump and his allies were outspent by huge margins. Money allows candidates and groups to speak. Voters decide based on their beliefs. It’s time to put aside the discredited idea that money buys votes. Instead, we should focus on expanding First Amendment freedoms for all Americans.”
Some political spending facts from CCP about last night’s election:
- Clinton outspent Trump more than 2 to 1.
- Pro-Clinton ads outnumbered pro-Trump ads 3 to 1.
- Independent groups supporting Clinton outspent independent groups supporting Trump 3 to 1.
- In the top states in terms of ads run (FL, OH, NC, PA, NV, IA), Clinton supporters ran over 3 times more ads. She lost 5 of these 6 states.
- The three biggest super PAC spenders supporting Presidential candidates (Clinton, Bush, and Rubio) spent $275 million on losing efforts – nearly 1/4 of all super PAC spending.
CCP analyzed the data (more detail on CCP's website) and concluded:
Taken together, what do these facts mean? The lesson is clear: political spending is an avenue for speech – it is necessary to buy political ads, to get a candidate’s message out, and pay for the numerous costs of a campaign, among other things. But despite many claims to the contrary, elections are not “bought” by millionaires and billionaires – they are decided by voters who either buy a candidate’s message or do not.
In the coming weeks and months, there will be many lessons to take away from Trump’s upset victory, but one should surely be that, despite many claims by advocates of greater speech regulation, wealthy individuals and the so-called “special interests” do not and cannot use money to decide the outcomes of elections.
For all of the liberal handwringing over individuals, corporations, PACs, and organizations exercising their First Amendment right to spend money to communicate a political message, the voters can, and do, make decisions without falling victim to the "corruption" of political spending. That is why the First Amendment exists--to protect the people against government officials who would like to decide what they hear and say.
Among other things, Hillary Clinton discussed using a litmus test for potential Supreme Court justices during a visit to Madison,
Wisconsin, yesterday. We addressed a similar issue some time ago coming from another Democrat, Bernie Sanders.
Hillary made several comments about election law during her speech, echoing the earlier comments from Sanders on current election law:
A lot of Americans are concerned about money in politics, and rightly so. It’s a serious problem that we have to address.
But Supreme Court justices are appointed for life. They’re not making decisions based on campaign contributions . . . . And
consider, if you will, the dangerous turn the Court has taken in recent years
toward protecting the rights of corporations over those of people.
Now
you may have heard of the case Citizens United. The Court ruled that
corporations have an unfettered right to free speech, just like you and
me. That means no limit on what corporations can spend independently to
influence elections. And – big surprise – a flood of money from rich
people, corporations and special interests has poured into our politics.
Citizens
United opened the door to the creation of
Super-PACs and between the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections, spending by
outside groups tripled. In 2014, the top 100 donors to super PACs spent
nearly as much as all 4-million-750-thousand small donors in the country
combined.
Now the idea, I believe, that money is speech turns our
Constitution upside down. Wealth should not be privileged in the courts –
in fact, it should have no privilege. Yet at a time when inequality
between working Americans and those at the top is starker than ever, the
Supreme Court has given the wealthiest Americans even greater power to affect
what happens in our democracy.
. . . If the Court doesn’t overturn Citizens United, I will
fight for a Constitutional amendment to limit the influence of money in
elections. It is dangerous to our country and poisonous to our politics.
Hillary seems
exceptionally concerned about super PACs. Yet the super PAC supporting her is leading the fundraising race of the super PACs supporting all candidates remaining in the field. She is benefitting from the corporate spending and speech that she rails against.
As we have detailed regarding Clinton's calls for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United in the past, scholars on the right and left agree that such an amendment would have disastrous effects on the right to free speech and protect the power of the political establishment against the voice of ordinary citizens.
The assertions in the statement above speak to Clinton's misunderstanding of the importance of free speech, the nature of the political system, and the purpose and power of the Judicial Branch, especially given the clearly
articulated ABA
Rules of Judicial Conduct. On one hand Clinton argues that the
Court has a great deal of impact and should be respected; on the other she
states that it’s irrelevant and she will work to amend the constitution should
the Court decide contrary to her assessment of Citizens United.
