Tuesday, February 21, 2012

Money Matters

It would be absurd to argue that money hasn't mattered in politics for a long time. But since the Citizens decision of 2010, money has moved to the forefront of American politics to the benefit of corporations and to the detriment of everyone else. Three stories in the past week highlight the ways money is further degrading our already degraded political process:

  •  A story from the New Yorker last week (Attack Dog) detailed the continued relevance of Larry McCarthy, the political advertising genius who gave us the infamous Willie Horton ad that helped George Bush senior win the 1988 election against MA governor Michael Dukakis. McCarthy is now making millions a year helping to create mostly negative ads that are often loose with facts and high on fear. The good news is he doesn't really have any deep political convictions, making him a perfect fit for the Romney campaign that he is now working with. And his ads work, helping to arguably win two presidential elections (he was also instrumental, together with the Swift Boat Veterans for Lies, in swinging the 2004 election to Bush Jr.) and a number of other state and local races.
  • Romney is currently facing a 10-point deficit to Christian, conservative candidate Rick Santorum. And while he is in jeopardy of losing the nomination that seemed like his a few short weeks ago, a deluge of advertising in Michigan has turned the polls to his side: Slatest. This was also the case in Florida and Iowa and may mean that he wins simply by outspending his more cash-constricted opponents. It is also true that every Presidential election since financial records have been kept has been won by the candidate who spends more money (including Obama), which does not bode well in an Obama vs. Romney matchup. 
  • Finally is the story of Gingrich patron saint Sheldon Adelson, the billionaire (worth about $25 billion) who after infusing the cash-hungry campaign with $10 million is now claiming he might spend up to $100 million to get his man in (Slatest). When reporters complained that he was essentially trying to buy the election he replied:
    "Those people are either jealous or professional critics. ... They like to trash other people. It’s unfair that I’ve been treated unfair—but it doesn’t stop me. I might give $10 million or $100 million to Gingrich. ...I’m against very wealthy ­people attempting to or influencing elections. But as long as it’s doable I’m going to do it. Because I know that guys like Soros have been doing it for years, if not decades. And they stay below the radar by creating a network of corporations to funnel their money. I have my own philosophy and I’m not ashamed of it. I gave the money because there is no other legal way to do it. I don’t want to go through ten different corporations to hide my name. I’m proud of what I do and I’m not looking to escape recognition."
    So while money may not buy happiness, it looks like it can go a long way in buying elections ...

No comments: