Posted 4:04 am Tuesday, June 12, 2012
Send to Kindle
Can’t Buy Me Love, Or Even An Election
In the wake of Gov. Scott Walker’s win in Wisconsin last week — he beat back a recall effort by enraged Democrats, led by public sector unions — many have lamented the influence of money in that election in particular, and in politics in general. They point to the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which threw out many campaign financing laws and allowed more corporate money into the arena.
“Last night’s results are one of the starkest examples yet of what money can buy,” Margaret Carlson wrote for Bloomberg.com. “Even before Barrett won the nomination to run against him, Walker blanketed the state with TV and radio ads. Barrett could never catch up, nor did he have the wherewithal to do so. Walker had a 7-to-1 cash advantage. For the first time at the state level, the Citizens United Supreme Court decision showed what unfettered donations can do.”
But is that true?
There’s growing empirical evidence it’s not.
But is that true?
There’s growing empirical evidence it’s not.
The guys at Freakanomics have looked at the studies and concluded that money simply isn’t as influential as losing candidates tend to claim.
“Money doesn’t necessarily cause a candidate to win — but, rather, that the kind of candidate who’s attractive to voters also ends up attracting a lot of money,” the economists say. “So winning an election and raising money do go together, just as rain and umbrellas go together. But umbrellas don’t cause the rain. And it doesn’t seem as if money really causes electoral victories either, at least not nearly to the extent that the conventional wisdom says. For every well-funded candidate who seems to confirm that money buys elections (paging Michael Bloomberg), you can find counterexamples like Meg Whitman, Linda McMahon, Steve Forbes, and Tom Golisano.”
The Freakanomics guys, Steve Levitt and Stephen Dubner, point to our own Gov. Rick Perry.
“Money doesn’t necessarily cause a candidate to win — but, rather, that the kind of candidate who’s attractive to voters also ends up attracting a lot of money,” the economists say. “So winning an election and raising money do go together, just as rain and umbrellas go together. But umbrellas don’t cause the rain. And it doesn’t seem as if money really causes electoral victories either, at least not nearly to the extent that the conventional wisdom says. For every well-funded candidate who seems to confirm that money buys elections (paging Michael Bloomberg), you can find counterexamples like Meg Whitman, Linda McMahon, Steve Forbes, and Tom Golisano.”
The Freakanomics guys, Steve Levitt and Stephen Dubner, point to our own Gov. Rick Perry.
“Take a look at the (2011) Iowa caucuses,” they write. “Rick Perry was the top spender, buying $4.3 million worth of ads — which got him only 10 percent of the vote. Santorum, meanwhile, spent only $30,000 on ads (the least of any candidate) and practically tied Romney — who spent $1.5 million this time around on Iowa ads, versus $10 million in 2008.”
Their conclusions are echoed by others. New York University Professor Robert Shrum, who has served as an advisor to many Democratic presidential candidates, agrees.
Their conclusions are echoed by others. New York University Professor Robert Shrum, who has served as an advisor to many Democratic presidential candidates, agrees.
“In politics there is certainly no linear relationship between amount of money and degree of success,” he wrote last year. “Just ask the well-heeled Republican losers of presidential primaries past — former Texas Governor John Connally, former Texas Senator Phil Gramm, and former Mayor and front-runner Rudolph Giuliani. Or how about Howard Dean, who raised and spent nearly $40 million before crashing and burning in the 2004 Iowa caucuses?”
University of Missouri at Columbia economics professor Jeff Milo says the same thing.
“The misperception that political spending drives electoral outcomes is reinforced every campaign season by sensational media coverage, post-election debriefs from losing candidates and the exaggerated rhetoric of professional reform advocates,” he says. “And this first presidential election cycle post-Citizens United promises to bolster that errant view as sanctimonious posturing by pundits on the evils of money in politics will likely crescendo to a spectacle rivaling only a North Korean grief orgy.”
We have argued before that efforts to roll back the Citizens United decision amount to censorship — government telling people what they can and can’t say.
But the evidence now shows it’s also a response to a non-existent threat. You simply can’t buy elections in the modern era — just ask Rick Perry.
University of Missouri at Columbia economics professor Jeff Milo says the same thing.
“The misperception that political spending drives electoral outcomes is reinforced every campaign season by sensational media coverage, post-election debriefs from losing candidates and the exaggerated rhetoric of professional reform advocates,” he says. “And this first presidential election cycle post-Citizens United promises to bolster that errant view as sanctimonious posturing by pundits on the evils of money in politics will likely crescendo to a spectacle rivaling only a North Korean grief orgy.”
We have argued before that efforts to roll back the Citizens United decision amount to censorship — government telling people what they can and can’t say.
But the evidence now shows it’s also a response to a non-existent threat. You simply can’t buy elections in the modern era — just ask Rick Perry.
