Campaign Spending 2010
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on November 24, 2010.
In January, the Supreme Court, in its Citizens United ruling, forbade the government from restricting corporate spending on candidate elections. Some pundits mocked the ruling, as it continued the Court's practice of treating corporations as individuals, this time in terms of free political speech rights. Others worried that elections would now be flooded with money as corporate donors attempted to "buy votes."
Now that the election is over, a valid and important question is, did anyone try to buy votes? Or was this just a red herring? Before we can answer that question, we need to know how much money was spent in the 2010 election season. The number, actually, is astounding.
The Center for Responsive Politics estimates that almost $4 billion (with a "B") was spent on the various races in the 2010 election - the most ever.
In races for the House, $972 million was raised and $845 million was spent. Republicans out-raised Democrats $502 million to $465 million. The race that raised the most money was in Minnesota, where Republican incumbent, and eventual winner, Michele Bachmann raised over $11 million, more than doubling the $4.2 million raised by her Democratic challenger Tarryl Clark.
In races for the Senate, $668 million was raised and $609 million was spent. Republicans also out-raised Democrats, $356 million to $294 million. The top race was in Connecticut, where Democrat Richard Blumenthal raised $7.6 million to hold on to Democratic stalwart Chris Dodd's former seat. He was able to overcome Republican challenger Linda McMahon, who raised a whopping $47 million, almost all of it coming from her own personal accounts.
Does it really take over $15 million to run a race for a House seat and $55 million to run a race for a Senate seat? Fortunately not - at least not yet.
In Vermont, Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy raised $4.6 million, and spent just over $3 million, to defeat Republican Len Britton. Britton's numbers pale in comparison to Leahy's, with just under $200,000 raised and $144,000 spent.
Democratic Representative Peter Welch raised $974,000 and spent $573,000 to retain his seat; Republican challenger Paul Baudry raised just over $30,000 and spent $23,000 of that.
But what about all that unrestricted corporate spending? The Center for Responsive Politics estimates that this outside spending amounted to $282 million in the 2010 election - $90 million in support of liberal candidates and $184 million in support of conservative candidates.
It is hard to say, however, how much of an effect on elections this money had in 2010. It seems clear that impatience with the pace of economic improvement played a big part in Republican gains in 2010. Even if spending on conservative candidates had not almost doubled that on liberal candidates, it's unlikely that the outcome would have been much different.
So why all the hullabaloo about Citizens United and all the unrestricted and unreported corporate spending if it is likely that the result in 2010 would have been the same anyway? The problem is that the next election may not be so stilted to one side, and any small weight could tip the scales. Plus, with the presidency on the line, the temptation to spend even more money in 2012 will be hard to resist.
The regulation of political spending is a mine field of conflicting principles and interests. Most would agree that it is getting our of hand, if it has not already. The big question is, though, what can be done about it? I don't think the issue is a threat to our democracy just yet, but it can become one.
It should be a priority to work out the issues surrounding campaign financing. It must be possible to come to agreement on what can be accomplished relative to the guidelines provided by the Supreme Court (or to propose amendments to the Constitution if these limits are too restrictive). We must have and enforce reasonable reporting requirements. And we must expect the government and the press to make sure that the public knows all it has a right to, in a timely manner, so we can decide for ourselves if someone is trying to buy our vote.
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Friday, November 12, 2010
Analyzing the 2010 Election
Analyzing the 2010 Election
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on November 11, 2010.
Interpreting election results can be as tricky as predicting them. Given that, I suggest you add my voice to all the others you've heard in the past week as you make up your own mind.
At the state level, I am proud of Vermonters as we did two things: we bucked the general trend toward the right, but at the same time, we were maverick-like in our choices at the state level.
With so many office-holders giving up their seats this year, many of the main offices were fresh for the taking: Governor, Lieutenant-Governor, Secretary of State.
Williston itself showed a conservative streak in its vote for governor, with Republican Brian Dubie winning the vote 53 percent to Democrat Peter Shumlin's 46 percent. Statewide, though Shumlin pulled in just under 50 percent of the vote (to Dubie's 47 percent), Dubie conceeded the race. The selection of governor will, technically, be left to the legislature, but Dubie's concession virtually guarantees Shumlin's eventual win.
In the Lieutenant Governor's race, the Republican Phil Scott beat Democrat Steve Howard 48 percent to 41 percent; in Williston, Scott pulled in 54 percent of the vote to Howard's 39 percent.
And finally in the Secretary of State's race, Democrat Jim Condos beat out Republican Jason Gibbs 54 percent to 44 percent; in Williston, the numbers were similar, 54 percent to 46 percent.
Based on Williston's vote in the top two races on the ticket, I still have a lot of work to do here, trying to convince the majority of my neighbors that the best choice for Vermont is left-leaning. I hope the governor's actions help me out in that regard!
My impression is that Vermonters in general were not particularly impressed with the tone the political advertisements took in Vermont this campaign season, particularly in the governor's race. At the same time, I was impressed with much of Peter Shumlin's advertising, especially his "whiteboard" series, which condensed complex issues down to their bare bones, and may have made a real difference in the campaign.
Shumlin's unerring support for closing Vermont Yankee also resonated with many Vermonters (though not with your humble columnist), and ads touting his business experience also raised confidence in many Vermonters.
The wide margins won by our current members of Congress show yet again the power of incumbency, especially when there is a general air of satisfaction with the incumbent's work. The best advice I would have for any newly elected member of Congress from Vermont is to represent the state vigorously and to keep your nose clean. With those two things under your belt, a long-term job seems easy to keep.
Nationally, of course, this is no time for liberals to celebrate. Though the polls told us it was coming, hope sprung eternal that the losses would not be so bad. Democrats did retain control of the Senate, but likely because only a third of the body was up for election.
In the House, the swing from Democratic to Republican control is one of the biggest on record. However, since Democrats still hold the Presidency and the Senate, the next two years are going to be the Republicans' chance to show not that they can flex their muscle, but that they can compromise.
The 2010 election made one thing clear: the American public is impatient. Given what they got in 2008, President Obama and the 111th Congress accomplished a lot, but in the face of continued unemployment near double digits, it seems that we as a people think that the Republicans can do better. I'm not sure they can, but I'm not going to wish that they fail. I hope that Republicans and Democrats both can set aside their differences and work to finding solutions to our national problems.
We'll also see if the gleam of the Tea Party continues to shine, or if it will tarnish as its new leaders, including Senators-elect Rand Paul of Kentucky and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, try to influence legislation in the 112th Congress. Fortunately for their states, and us all, the worst of the Tea Party, Sharon Angle and Christine O'Donnell, went down to defeat. Even Alaska's Joe Miller seems, at this writing, to have lost to write-in incumbent Lisa Murkowski.
I'm confident that Democrats are willing to work with Republicans to get the tough work of governing the nation done. The next two years will show the American people if the Republicans are just as willing, or if the obstructionism they've been known for in the last two years will continue to be a feature of their governing strategy for the next two years.
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on November 11, 2010.
Interpreting election results can be as tricky as predicting them. Given that, I suggest you add my voice to all the others you've heard in the past week as you make up your own mind.
At the state level, I am proud of Vermonters as we did two things: we bucked the general trend toward the right, but at the same time, we were maverick-like in our choices at the state level.
With so many office-holders giving up their seats this year, many of the main offices were fresh for the taking: Governor, Lieutenant-Governor, Secretary of State.
Williston itself showed a conservative streak in its vote for governor, with Republican Brian Dubie winning the vote 53 percent to Democrat Peter Shumlin's 46 percent. Statewide, though Shumlin pulled in just under 50 percent of the vote (to Dubie's 47 percent), Dubie conceeded the race. The selection of governor will, technically, be left to the legislature, but Dubie's concession virtually guarantees Shumlin's eventual win.
In the Lieutenant Governor's race, the Republican Phil Scott beat Democrat Steve Howard 48 percent to 41 percent; in Williston, Scott pulled in 54 percent of the vote to Howard's 39 percent.
And finally in the Secretary of State's race, Democrat Jim Condos beat out Republican Jason Gibbs 54 percent to 44 percent; in Williston, the numbers were similar, 54 percent to 46 percent.
Based on Williston's vote in the top two races on the ticket, I still have a lot of work to do here, trying to convince the majority of my neighbors that the best choice for Vermont is left-leaning. I hope the governor's actions help me out in that regard!
My impression is that Vermonters in general were not particularly impressed with the tone the political advertisements took in Vermont this campaign season, particularly in the governor's race. At the same time, I was impressed with much of Peter Shumlin's advertising, especially his "whiteboard" series, which condensed complex issues down to their bare bones, and may have made a real difference in the campaign.
Shumlin's unerring support for closing Vermont Yankee also resonated with many Vermonters (though not with your humble columnist), and ads touting his business experience also raised confidence in many Vermonters.
The wide margins won by our current members of Congress show yet again the power of incumbency, especially when there is a general air of satisfaction with the incumbent's work. The best advice I would have for any newly elected member of Congress from Vermont is to represent the state vigorously and to keep your nose clean. With those two things under your belt, a long-term job seems easy to keep.
Nationally, of course, this is no time for liberals to celebrate. Though the polls told us it was coming, hope sprung eternal that the losses would not be so bad. Democrats did retain control of the Senate, but likely because only a third of the body was up for election.
In the House, the swing from Democratic to Republican control is one of the biggest on record. However, since Democrats still hold the Presidency and the Senate, the next two years are going to be the Republicans' chance to show not that they can flex their muscle, but that they can compromise.
The 2010 election made one thing clear: the American public is impatient. Given what they got in 2008, President Obama and the 111th Congress accomplished a lot, but in the face of continued unemployment near double digits, it seems that we as a people think that the Republicans can do better. I'm not sure they can, but I'm not going to wish that they fail. I hope that Republicans and Democrats both can set aside their differences and work to finding solutions to our national problems.
We'll also see if the gleam of the Tea Party continues to shine, or if it will tarnish as its new leaders, including Senators-elect Rand Paul of Kentucky and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, try to influence legislation in the 112th Congress. Fortunately for their states, and us all, the worst of the Tea Party, Sharon Angle and Christine O'Donnell, went down to defeat. Even Alaska's Joe Miller seems, at this writing, to have lost to write-in incumbent Lisa Murkowski.
I'm confident that Democrats are willing to work with Republicans to get the tough work of governing the nation done. The next two years will show the American people if the Republicans are just as willing, or if the obstructionism they've been known for in the last two years will continue to be a feature of their governing strategy for the next two years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)