Citizens United, billions of campaign dollars and commercials later, the United States is as polarized as ever.
Progressives, liberals, media and political elites, all screamed when Citizens United overturned the McCain-Feinfold Campaign Finance Reform law. Yet after two years and billions of dollars spent by Democrats, Republicans, and independent Pacs and SuperPacs around the country, the polling showed one of the most divisive electorates in modern history.
Whereas 20, even 30, years ago, 80 percent of votes were a toss-up, including in the larger states of California and New York, now these spectator states are all but assured before the middle of the election year, followed by a dwindling number of swing states that get bombarded with mailers, flyers, televisions and internet ads, radio spots, and candidate rallies.
Nevertheless, over the past three weeks, the polling danced around 47 and 49 percent in many contests. These results should awaken a spirit of skepticism in the low-information as well as the well-informed voters. Although the election seems like years ago, the Wisconsin gubernatorial recall election last spring seemed to be a close race, after the final polling both closed and the last ballot was counted, incumbent Gov. Scott Walker emerged ahead by 11 points. This was a better finish than when he first won the governor's seat.
Another Way to Spend Your Money
U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Beverly Hills/South Bay), among other more liberal and progressive candidates, is calling for public financing of political campaigns, as if spreading around taxpayer dollars will solve all the problems. Following the money drain of 2010, when Republican party operatives dropped $187 billion into the Golden State, only to yield hay, straw, stubble, and not one Republican win for statewide or national office, it would appear that money in politics does not hold the terroritorial or even torturous influence over voters that pundits had fearfully predicted.
In one key race, the California 66th Assembly District, the Democratic candidate Al Muratsuchi, a Torrance Unified School District Board member and state prosecutor, poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into the fiscally conservative, socially moderate district. The greatest alarm, motivating voters and volunteers by the volume, to step in and campaign for Republican rival Craig Huey and Muratsuchi centered on the Democratic party's hope to gain two more seats, solidifying a two-thirds majority in both houses of the state legislature. This would enable them to pass any tax, regulation, or even repeal the revered Prop. 13. After months of frequent mailers, many of them maligning Republican Huey as a misogynist and a crooked Tea Party extremist, the nasty vitriol turned off voters. The growing frustration of flyers flying in the face of South Bay voters turned them out to vote for Huey in a district that had a three- point Democratic registration advantage.
What Happened to Huey
Without large sums of money, with a solid message of lower taxes and protection of Prop. 13, small business owner Huey carried his message with a dedicated team of volunteers throughout the district. Still, Muratsuchi won the race. In no wise should one interpret his victory as based on extensive campaign cash. Independent businessman Bill Bloomfield poured $7 million into his own campaign against Democrat Waxman, yet lost by six points.
It would seem that money has at best a hit-and-miss influence on politics. If the message is good, the money will make it more so. If the message, the candidate, or the circumstances war against the better interests of intuition of the voter, then the money only makes a bad message worse.
There, money is having a diminished effect in our politics. Word of mouth, private bloggers, independent campaigns, boutique commentators, and the roaring expanse of the internet commentary, complete with live mikes and sudden surprises, have put all candidates on the alert, arming the citizen with more information, more input, more influence, with or without money.
Don’t Pay Attention
The fear-mongering of academic elites about the corruption of corporate dollars in campaigns has been reduced to naught. This waning influence of money in politics has diminished not because of more stringent laws regulating the investment and intervention of campaign dollars, but rather because the spigot of easy money has drenched the electorate, watering down its impact altogether.
Citizens United revealed how divided our citizens and national polity gas become, that money will no longer move the masses. Instead, access, rapidity, and a cunning need to influence voters, drive elections and the future of our country. Money no longer drives our politics. It never did. After three years of electronic persuasion, let us hope that the “public campaign” caucus will have spent its last venting on this issue, and Citizens United will remain the law of the land.
Mr. Schaper of Torrance, a teacher turned writer “on all topics timely and timeless,” may be contacted at aschaper1.blogspot.com and at asheisministries.blogspot.com
