The 2012 presidential election was the first election affected by
the landmark case FEC vs. Citizens United. In the case, the Supreme Court ruled
that corporations can support candidates through Super Political Action
Committees, and endorsements. The Supreme Court hailed the decision as a
victory for free speech. However, an unexpected result of this decision caused
the US, a nation famously “of the people, for the people, and by the people” to
become of, for, and by the corporations. If we are really to believe that
America is a country for equality, then every American should have an equal
voice.
In today’s America, elections are like a Monopoly game, with
minorities being Park Place, and the youth vote as Boardwalk. Only, this game
of monopoly is not for bragging rights. It’s for the leader of the free world. In
both Monopoly and in an election, money is precious. In Monopoly, if a player is
willing to give you Bond Street (thus completing your green monopoly) in
exchange for bailing them out of jail, you would agree faster than you could
pass GO, and collect 200. Similarly in politics, a politician would likely
advocate for lower taxes on oil in exchange for millions of dollars of
donations to Super PACs. A mildly subtle form of bribery. So it stands to
reason that the highest bidder is more than willing to buy candidates--and
elections.
There may be many who disagree with me, saying that Governor
Romney not only outspent President Obama overall, but outspent him in most of
the swing states. Despite this spending, he did lose most of the swing states.
In a head-to-head comparison, it would seem like money didn’t drastically
affect the election, as the richer campaign lost. But it’s worth noting that
even after spending around a billion dollars (by some estimates), the Romney
campaign ran out of money. So it isn’t clear what the result would have been if
he had more money.
If you look at the swing states, where most of the money was
spent, in the table below, you’ll notice that the larger polling gains were
attributed to the candidate who spent the most money in each state. The
original figures, from late March and early April 2012, just after Rick
Santorum dropped out of Republican Primaries, show a pre-spending Romney
desperately trailing Barack Obama. After many millions of dollars of spending,
Romney managed to close the gap between himself and President Obama, but he did
not have enough money to surpass the President.
Given how close last year’s popular
vote was, if Governor Romney had gained just 1.4% of the American public, who
voted for President Obama, he would have won the popular vote. If it was only
the amount of money spent that caused the reduced gap, the data below shows
that for 168 million more dollars Governor Romney could have won the election. Governor Romney’s top 10 donors alone donated
~$75 million—a number which is nearly half of the number he would have needed
to win. To put $170 million into perspective, it’s 0.04% of the value of
Apple. In the world of mega-billion dollar corporations $168 million is chump
change.
Of course, this is assuming a full causal relationship between
money spent and votes gained. Obviously the correlation is nowhere near this
large, but even if there were only a 1% correlation, just 4% of Apple would be
needed to change the winner of the Presidential election. If the outcome of an
election can be changed by any amount of money—and it can, otherwise we
wouldn’t be spend trillions of dollars on them—then no corporation should be allowed
to donate money to any candidate, or Super PAC. Corporations are too large, and
too powerful to have an unlimited say in elections.
If America is truly centered on the spirit of equality, then the
more powerful and wealthy should not have a larger say. Just like Bill Gates
shouldn’t get 60 billion votes, he shouldn’t be able to donate $60 billion.
It’s reminiscent of Animal Farm to have all citizens equal, but some
more equal than others. This thinly veiled form of bribery must stop. It’s time we reform campaign finance laws,
because government should not be the key piece to a monopoly against its
citizens.
|
State
|
Poll Result1
|
Poll Date
|
Election Result
|
$ Spent on ads (mil)3
|
% Gain
|
$mil/% gain
|
|
Florida
|
O: 47.5
R: 43.3
|
4/26/12
|
O: 50
R: 49.1
|
O: 78
R: 95
|
O+2.5
R+5.8
|
O: 31.2
R: 16.4
|
|
Virginia
|
O: 47.0
R: 42.8
|
4/30/12
|
O: 51.2
R: 47.3
|
O: 68
R: 83
|
O+4.2
R+4.5
|
O: 16.2
R: 18.4
|
|
Ohio
|
O: 46.0
R: 41.8
|
5/4/12
|
O: 50.7
R: 47.7
|
O: 72
R: 78
|
O+4.7
R+5.9
|
O: 15.3
R: 13.2
|
|
N. Carolina
|
O: 46.7
R: 44.3
|
5/1/12
|
O: 48.4
R: 50.4
|
O: 40
R: 57
|
O+1.7
R+6.1
|
O: 23.5
R: 9.3
|
|
Colorado
|
O: 50
R: 43.5
|
5/15/12
|
O: 51.5
R: 46.1
|
O: 36
R: 37
|
O+1.5
R+2.6
|
O: 24
R: 14.2
|
|
Iowa2
|
O: 51.0
R: 41.0
|
5/7/12
|
O: 52.0
R: 46.2
|
O: 27
R: 30
|
O+1
R+5.2 |
O: 27
R: 5.8
|
|
Nevada
|
O: 49.7
R: 42.3
|
5/2/12
|
O: 52.4
R: 45.7
|
O: 26
R: 29
|
O+2.7
R+3.4
|
O: 9.7
R: 8.5
|
|
Wisconsin
|
O: 51.3
R: 39.5
|
5/1/12
|
O: 52.8
R: 45.8
|
O: 13
R: 27
|
O+1.5
R+6.3
|
O: 8.7
R: 4.28
|
|
New Hamp.
|
O: 46.5
R: 43
|
5/1/12
|
O: 52.0
R: 46.4
|
O: 18
R: 16
|
O+5.5
R+3.4
|
O: 3.3
R: 4.7
|
|
Michigan
|
O: 50.3
R: 39.0
|
5/1/12
|
O: 54.2
R: 47.4
|
O: 8
R: 24
|
O+3.9
R+8.4
|
O: 2.0
R: 2.9
|
|
USA
|
O: 47.9
R: 43.7
|
4/27/12
|
O: 50.6
R: 47.8
|
O: 404
R: 492
|
O+2.7
R+4.1
|
O:149.7
R:120
|
1Source: RealClearPolitics polling average
2Source: Public Policy Polling
3Source: Washington post
