One of the fun things about being part of the DK community is that you can say some pretty outrageous things and be gently (!!) chided back into the right direction by legions of commenters. So let me make a pretty outrageous claim, try to defend it, then stand back for the fireworks.
It has been universally recognized that Citizens United unleashed, and will continue to unleash, a sh*tstorm of money into the political process, and it’s pretty much acknowledged that if allowed to stand, it will be a disaster for democracy. I am going to take a contrary position, and state that it may not be as much of a disaster as many predict, for 2 basic reasons. The first is that this money represents real spending that will inject real cash into our economy, which will help keep Americans employed. The second is that all that money is not likely to be all that effective anyway.
OK, I’m just an engineer, wandering off into the dizzying world of economics, finance, and politics. I need some help here. To the economists and political science majors out there - please take a look at my analysis below, and help me understand where I am making my mistakes.
Point 1: When billionaires like the Koch brothers spend lots of money on conservative causes, one important point that everyone overlooks is BILLIONAIRES ARE SPENDING LOTS OF MONEY. Every hundred million that the Koch’s spend is a hundred million that they no longer have. So what does that mean for America? Well in an era when financial institutions are tightening up their lending practices and refusing to open up their vaults, it is important that capital gets injected into the economy some way, some how. When billionaires release money for political causes, there is a direct impact on the economy. Jobs are created in industries like advertising, legal, accounting, filmmaking, travel, food and entertainment. At least some of that money goes to working Americans who will feed their families and buy clothes and rent movies and take vacations to exotic locations. And the businesses that those workers frequent will also benefit by virtue of the multiplier effect. Although I suspect many of those Americans are also conservatives, I guarantee you that many are not. Undoubtedly, a lot of the people who benefit from the hundreds of millions of dollars donated by the Kochs are fellow travelers who will vote against the very candidates the money is supposed to help. So very ironically, jobs are created and the unemployment rate comes down. Thanks, Charles.
That brings me to my second point. How effective is all that money in swaying elections? Just how many votes does each dollar buy? How much money does each vote cost? If every dollar spent convinced one voter to cast his or her vote for the touted politician, I would be truly terrified. But as many Kossacks have pointed out (forgive me if I don’t cite specific commenters or diaries - I often note them mentally, and move on), this is a diminishing returns situation. How many times does one need to hear that the state of KY needs Mitch McConnell’s “experience” before one starts yelling “BS” back at the TV? And in fact there may be evidence that audience fatigue may actually work against the candidate in question. When claims are exposed as bogus, the candidate gets a lot of negative attention, and the opposition is roused to action. Is it possible there may be a negative correlation between spending and popularity in some instances? Granted, some spending is effective, but more spending is undoubtedly not always more effective. Does anyone remember 2012, after all?
I have been voting in CA elections for almost 4 decades. I am often outraged at the abuses that torment our voters through our initiative system. Wealthy interests always seem to have PACs named Honest Citizens for Better California, or some such nonsense that then spend obscene numbers of dollars trying to convince us to vote one way or another. I always try to ask, who benefits if this passes? – then read arguments for and against, and see who is publicly backing or fighting the idea. Then I vote. And I tell everyone who will listen, I am almost always astonished, pleased, and proud of the way that we Californians make those decisions. The majority of these initiatives are voted correctly. And our economy benefits from the infusion of cash leading up to the election, thank you very much. Of course one obvious exception was Proposition 8, but that was passed only after a massive invasion (feet on the ground, not just money) of anti-gay activists from out-of-state, and included a lot of very deceptive ads (read: LIES) that obfuscated the real issues. Fortunately the courts eventually handled that correctly.
Several diaries that I highly recommend everyone re-read were written by brooklynbadboy here and here. He demonstrated very effectively that there is NOT a large cadre of undecided, empty-headed voters out there just waiting to be influenced by the next TV spot they hear. In fact that cohort contains remarkably few actual people. Instead, independent voters appear to be even more liberal (or conservative) than the declared liberal Democrats (or Republicans). The bottom line is that elections are ALWAYS decided by the volume of voters. It’s simple - When voters go to the polls in large numbers, liberals win, when they don’t, conservatives win. So counter to the sky-is-falling, hand-wringing angst generated by liberal pundits and press over Citizens United and the Koch brothers, I am suggesting that just maybe all the new money in politics and the Koch-inspired PAC ads will boost the economy and may actually help elect some progressive candidates, simply by energizing ALL voters.
So where exactly do I see Koch money energizing the opposition or otherwise failing to produce? This is where the rubber meets the road. I am especially hopeful that Koch money will backfire in Senate races in NC, KY, AK and AR, maybe in LA, and at least light a fire in GA. In gubernatorial races, I am betting on a backlash in AR, MI, WI, and FL, and some very interesting races in KS and OH and my heart wants to believe in TX as well. But for gerrymandering, even the House could get interesting again. (I dream of a Congress where climate change, immigration reform, Social Security, women's health, minimum wage, unemployment, and SNAP get actual intelligent deliberation, and a few more states accepting Medicaid expansion.) It’s going to be a long summer and fall.
Please don’t misinterpret this diary – I am not advocating for Citizens United. I will be first in line for a constitutional amendment reversing that horrible decision. I’m just saying I trust the American voter to make the right choices, if only we can pry him out of his chair. And maybe CU and the Kochs can help us do exactly that.
5:53 PM PT: My thanks to the many commenters (I knew this would get a lot of hackles up) for their excellent insights.
I have revised my title - added the last 4 words.
Of my 2 points, no one has refuted my first point - that donor money boosts the economy. I still maintain that is a valid point. CU will infuse a lot of money into the American economy, and it will get spent across all ideologies.
However, my second point, that the influx of cash is likely to be ineffective, clearly was focused on national and statewide offices, as my diary specifically identified. I still maintain that those offices are not as susceptible to Koch cash as they were, say, in 2010 when people were surprised by all the new money. But, as several people pointed out, CU cash is highly likely to have an inordinate impact on local elections, where much governing takes place, and is harder to counteract. In addition, money in politics has an overall corrupting and debilitating impact and creates a culture that accepts the influence of power and undermines the principles of one-man-one-vote that our system was founded on. For those reasons, I accept that CU is certain to have a long-term corrupting influence on our governance that I had not accounted for in my original diary.
I reiterate that I am NOT a supporter of CU, and if anyone read that into my diary, they were not paying attention. I have always believed in limiting money in politics, and my diary was not intended to argue otherwise. Only to point out that there are mitigating factors.
I will leave this diary up, since I think the arguments, and the responses, add value to this discussion.