Campaign donations go to the problem, not the solution
The election is over, and the emails have finally stopped. Now it is time to get to work and hold the people in Washington accountable for how our money is spent. If only we had had someone to do the same for us during the election.
According to both the Center for Responsive Politics and The New York Times, roughly $6 billion was spent on the 2012 elections. This money was not a complete waste, but it was not largely successful either. According to The New York Times, this $6 billion was split almost evenly, with a tad more spent on the Republican side. So, roughly $3 billion of that money went to candidates who did not win.
How could $3 billion have benefited local soup kitchens? Probably more than the candidates showing up to wash mostly clean dishes. (At least they have a celebrity photo that they can hang on the wall.)
This excess of money exemplifies our passive-aggressive—mostly just passive—culture. Instead of finding the facts and discussing them, we give money so that the campaigns can sort it out. This method saves us from having to do any of the work or offend people, which is fine. But it also wastes a tremendous amount of money.
Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision, which allows unlimited campaign contributions by corporations, unions and political action committees (PACs), the metaphorical floodgates have opened. To rephrase former President Ronald Reagan, money in politics is not the answer to our problems; money is the problem. And the electoral price tag will continue to get bigger until we do something.
According to The New York Times, the top Republican donors were hotel titan Sheldon Adelson and his wife, Miriam, a successful physician. The Adelsons spent $20 million collectively. Construction magnate Bob Perry came in second, spending another $10 million on Republican candidates, especially Mitt Romney.
The highest contributing Democrats, according to Politico.com, were CEO and President of NewsWeb Corp. Fred Eychaner, who spent $12.9 million. James Simmons, a former hedge fund manager, spent $7.8 million.
Because private individuals are allowed to donate only $2,500 to a federal candidate each election cycle, most of this money was spent through PACs and Super PACs.
The New York Times stated that the conservative PACs Restore Our Future and American Crossroads raised $142.6 million and $91 million, respectively. The pro-Obama PAC Priorities USA Action raised $66.5 million. Why does this matter? Because each group spent at least 90 percent of these funds on negative television ads that no one wanted to watch.
According to The New York Times, the majority of donations to the Obama campaign were in denominations of $200 or less, while the majority of donations to the Romney campaign were $2,000 or more. But this simply means that we all are guilty of tormenting our neighbors by infecting their televisions with negative ads.
This reveals a great dichotomy that exists today. Americans are willing to contribute $6 billion to campaigns, yet possess absolute disdain for negative television ads, as if we do not understand this is where the money goes.
Of course, there are reasons to contribute money, such as when you believe in a candidate who needs resources. But even then, we have such little control over how those contributions are spent. Furthermore, we should not want to continue to foster a culture that talks about campaigns for public office as if they are auctions.
According to the Citizens United decision, money equates to speech, which is free in the United States. This is fortunate, since talking to others about the issues seems to be too difficult. If only there were something that we could trade for doing the hard research.
The campaign donation numbers are trumped only by how much Americans spend on holidays. This past Halloween, we spent an incredible $8 billion on decorations, costumes and candy, according to IBISWorld research group. Christmas spending is nearly $140 billion. With these numbers, knowing whether to be overwhelmed or underwhelmed by election spending is difficult.
One thing is certain. In the United States, votes—like happiness and nearly everything else—are apparently something that you do buy.
