A note here to point up an opportunity of immense proportions that lies here for us in this election cycle:
The chance to convince billionaires that dumping mega-millions into right wing attack ads is ...
(drum roll)
a poor investment!
On Stephanie Miller's show, I was just listening to Eric Bolert (sp?) of Media Matters making a point I have been thinking about:
As advertising agencies know all too well, over-saturation of ads soon hits the wall of viewers' attention and goes sour.
Current indications are that the "carpet-bombing" approach of negative ads, like the carpet bombing in Viet Nam, has a pretty rapid tendency to lead to a steeply declining return on investment. Romney's flood of advertising has not managed to do more than marginally dent Obama's lead, and, as Bolert put it, the obscene avalanche of ads to come in 8 swing states will almost certainly have virtually everyone looking for cover.
In a context of oversaturation, a message presented in relentless ads has a hard time registering with people.
So, we approach the end game of this election. Right now, it seems clear that lots of winger millionaire/billionaires are beginning to wonder if the checks demanded by Rove & Co. are a good investment. The fact that Obama outraised Romney in August suggest testifies to this.
Bolert suggested that, if the CW consolidates around a likely Obama victory, Romney's money train may lose steam in Sept. and Oct. That makes perfect sense.
But of course the test is in Nov. If the massive investment delivers election wins, then none of this will matter and the plutocrats will be delighted with their investment. A win for the GOP this term would confirm the Citizen's United strategy and America would be enthralled by it for the foreseeable future.
However, IF WE HANG IN THERE AND BEAT THEM OFF …
The Plutos will look back at their massive investment and make the same decision they would make if a marketing campaign went sour. They’ll come to a conclusion: advertising carpet-bombing wastes money.
This of course does NOT mean that the Rovian Noise Machine will go out of business or that the Plutos will give up on campaign financing. By no means.
What it does mean is that they will come to the same conclusion they come to with marketing campaigns: investing in negative political ads has a CEILING of effectiveness. Spending beyond that ceiling pours money down a rabbit hole of counter-productive ineffectiveness.
Now, we can’t expect broadcast media to trumpet the ineffectiveness of revenues spent on their advertising slots. And yet, I think we can expect the mainstream CW to begin to recognize that ceiling of effectiveness. I can even imagine the paranoid minds of the Right Wing beginning to fear the dangers of Citizen United’s open doors and a reaction leading back to what was once an initiative shared in both parties: campaign financing reform.
Whether or not that happens, the important thing would be the effect on political strategy going forward. For decades, we’ve operated under the assumption that ad money generally beats other tactics. That core principle won’t change. What would be different is the sense that ad money has a ceiling of effectiveness, and must be balanced by other tactics and strategies. To establish in the American political community a conviction of that fact would be a major meta-achievement for the cycle.
I have never believed that the answer to money’s corruptive presence in campaigns lies in regulation or legislation. I mean, it could. But, in my view, any campaign finance reform robust enough to actually work could not possibly be enacted given the reliance of office holders on campaign financing. To get it done, we would have to have ALREADY replaced money-reliant incumbents with idealists. I don’t see that happening any time soon.
No, the answer to limiting the corruption of money in politics lies in beating it. Money-backed candidates (like Romney) need to lose elections. More importantly, people need to come to realize political propaganda when they hear it, a process that is inevitable, if all too slow to develop.
So, there’s a lot at stake in this election. Including a chance to deal a powerful blow to the Citizen’s United strategy and establish a ceiling for its effectiveness. That would be a major victory indeed.