Political pundits and those who benefit from huge campaign contributions are noting that the massive super PACs amassed by Scott Walker and Rick Perry to support their presidential runs weren’t enough to salvage their dismal campaigns. Therefore, the pundits chortle, the Citizens United v. FEC ruling by the Supreme Court has had no effect on US political campaigns.
While it is undoubtedly true that the sky has not fallen in presidential politics, that doesn’t mean it’s all sunny days and blue skies. There are some lessons we can learn from the GOP presidential race as it has unfolded so far:
1) In a crowded field, candidates who care about their political future still need a lot of small donors, or a medium amount of larger donors, to pay for their core staff operations. Walkerand Perryhad plenty of super PAC money to pay for ads, but they didn’t have enough funds to cover their own campaign staff and ground operations. Super PAC money may still allow one or two candidates (Ted Cruz perhaps) to hang around a long time after the field has thinned just to enjoy the spotlight– as Newt Gingrich did in 2012 due solely to super PAC support. But it remains a fact that small donor support still matters precisely because contribution limits still apply to candidate campaigns. That’s a good thing. Remember this the next time someone suggests we simply get rid of all limits.
2) Having a greater number of candidates doesn’t necessarily lead to a greater diversity in viewpoints for voters to choose between. Some have speculatedthat super PACs have encouraged even more candidates to run for president than otherwise would have. That may or may not be correct, but it certainly hasn’t led to more diversity among candidates. In fact, just the opposite may be occurring. Despite a majority of Republican voters believing that global warming is a serious problem and even 48% of Republican voters saying they’d be more likely to vote for a candidate who supports fighting climate change, only 1out of 17 GOP presidential contenders has made proposals to do that. Likewise, only 1 out of 17 supports a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United despite 73% of Republican voters wanting to reign in money in politics.
3) Carly Fiorina and Ben Carson (as well as Bernie Sanders on the Democratic side) have proven it is possible to rise in the polls without spending a lot of money. These two candidates have drawn significant support from debates, public appearances, news coverage, and social media. Remember this the next time somebody says it’s basically impossible for presidential candidates to “get their message out” without relying on big money. In fact, our current campaign finance system puts gobs of money where we need it least – in the one race where most people are already paying attention. Down ballot races for state legislature and other important offices attract comparatively little funding, yet candidates for those races have a much harder time getting their message out than presidential candidates do.
4) Big donors get big influence, even with candidates they aren’t writing checks to. Marco Rubio reportedly calls Sheldon Adelson every couple of weeks, giving Adelson way more opportunity than most Americans have to share his views with Rubio. But Adelson’s potential role as kingmaker has the entire Republican field cowering to his views, most notably on the Iran nuclear arms agreement. Money talks, and those with a lot of money talk a lot louder than anyone else.
5) Big money can’t elect a total loser to the White House. Walker and Perry have proven that this year, as Phil Gramm and others did long before Citizens United. But still, big money got them pretty far. Governors’ mansions and US Senate seats are more vulnerable to big money influence than presidential races, which may be why those posts are not proving to be as useful a source for strong presidential candidates as they used to be.
Just because money isn’t the sole factor in politics doesn’t mean it’s not important. But, that doesn’t mean that Citizens United is not having an effect on US politics, or that its effect is in any way good.