SuperPACs - ThisIsCommonSense.org

Last Saturday, The Washington Post’s top-of-the-front-page headline blared, “50 donors with outside impact.”

If that doesn’t curdle your blood, readers were further warned of a new “Gilded Age.” Yes, in concentrated fundraising the Post heard “echoes of the end of the 19th century, when wealthy interests spent millions to help put former Ohio governor William McKinley in the White House.”

McKinley. The horror. The echoes.

Hopefully, self-immolations can be kept to a bare minimum as Americans discover the report’s main (only) thrust: 41 percent of $607 million contributed to 2,300 super PACs this election cycle has come from just 50 donors … at least, if you also aggregate gifts from the relatives of these 50 folks and their business interests as well.

Isn’t that terrifying? Destructive of democracy? Are our elections simply being bought by the billionaires?

No. No. And no.

Any common sense analysis of this year’s presidential contests, both Republican and Democrat, must acknowledge that big money did not trump. Pun intended. Sen. Bernie Sanders is now outraising Hillary Clinton with millions of small donations — not “millionaires and billionaires.” Jeb Bush’s massive financial warchest made no discernible difference. Even the Post concedes “the mixed impact that big-money groups have had on the presidential contest so far.”

Mixed? Name a single state where “big spending” determined the outcome.

Ideas matter. And securing the resources to advance and advertise ideas obviously matters, too. Same goes for candidates — and their ideas.

More money, more campaign spending, means more ideas and candidacies can reach the political marketplace. That’s where voters, not big donors, do the deciding.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Common Sense Needs Your Help!

Also, please consider showing your appreciation by dropping something in our tip jar (this link will take you to the Citizens in Charge donation page… and your contribution will go to the support of the Common Sense website). Maintaining this site takes time and money.

Your help in spreading the message of common sense and liberty is very much appreciated!

At this time in an election year, condemnations of “negative” political ads crescendo to fortissimo. But hey: Are folks really so attached to watching the standard menu of TV advertisements for GEICO, Viagra, and Chia Pets?

I doubt it. I think they worry about what such nasty attacks say about our political process. Granted, many 30-second political spots stretch the truth like a pretzel, though not any more than the candidates regularly do in person.

Still, political debate today is no nastier than it was when Washington and Adams and Jefferson roamed the earth.

And TV wasn’t even very big back then.

“An onslaught of negative political advertisements in congressional races,” the New York Times relates, “has left many incumbents, including some Republicans long opposed to restrictions on campaign spending, concluding that legislative measures may be in order to curtail the power of the outside groups behind most of the attacks.”

Incumbents are smart … and informed about campaigns. I’ll bet they know that in the 54 races lost by incumbents in 2010, Super PACs spent on average over $900,000. In races incumbents won, about $75,000.

“Incumbents have a lot more money than challengers do,” Professor Bradley Smith, former Commissioner of the Federal Election Commission, points out, “and Super PACs help to level that playing field and make challengers competitive.”

Incumbents think that elections are a time for them to speak. It’s all about them. Plus, no one — great, lousy or mediocre — likes to be attacked.

But elections in a free society are a time for everyone to speak.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.