Super PACs: Not a Guaranteed Political Victory

         In politics there will always exist some influencing force. Interest groups are the largest influence who, by nature, are very much like factions in which James Madison was vocal about in "Federalist 10" when he declared, “the friend of popular governments never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice” (Madison). Similar to factions, super PACs are the political funding machine of interest groups with the targeted, indirect support of federal candidates during an election cycle. The influence and effect they have on presidential campaigns seed controversial opinions among contrasting groups of people. Certainly the nature of super PACs could be seen as buying an election; however, the 2012 presidential election showed that it didn’t guarantee a win for the largely more populous conservative super PACs, leaving contributors to sulk in the large sums of money spent on a losing candidate.

The Reality of Super PACs

         The opportunity for unlimited money to flow into federal campaigns became a reality in 2010 with Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in which the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment barred a federal law from limiting the amount of political expenditures by outside groups on the basis that it restricted political free speech (Wikipedia). It also allowed just about anyone, most notably corporations and labor unions, to contribute unlimited funds to these outside groups. Furthermore, donors can often remain anonymous thanks to loop holes in campaign finance laws which super PACs use to their advantage by funneling money through 501(c)(4) groups, also known as dark money spending.

         While super PACs have no limits on the money funneled through them, they are not permitted to coordinate strategy with candidates, which is the reason proponents argue that political corruption is not possible within a super PAC. On the other hand, good government advocates argue that this creates a large grey area by leaving room for a certain amount of interpretation. Before Rick Santorum’s 2012 presidential campaign was suspended, the chief donor Foster Friess traveled with Santorum at times, and it is argued that such trips served to strategize his campaign. Just how much independence a candidate is expected to maintain from supporting super PACs and wealthy interest groups leads to major complications and concerns in how the ever confusing campaign finance laws are interpreted and implemented. Regardless of the arguments, super PACs are an ever growing presence in today’s political landscape. Wealthy donors clearly see them as a significant method to support favorable candidates, but just how much influence they have shows less than consistent results—which proves that money alone will not guarantee victory for a candidate.

The First Big Experiment

         On paper, the theory of American elections being up for sale with the evolution of super PACs looks plausible, but there are too many dynamic variables—especially in a presidential campaign—that skew the benefit of throwing unlimited money in pursuit of victory. The 2012 presidential campaign was the first major experiment with super PACs on the national stage. With their unlimited expenditures in play, super PACs spent a total of $653 million in their efforts to influence the election (OpenSecrets). However, the Obama and Romney campaigns—with traditional campaign donations—amassed enough in their war chests to spend $1.12 billion in the general election, nearly twice as much as the super PACs.

         Voters often favor a particular party based on their own political ideology, so a candidate's characteristics become an important factor for advertising campaigns to consider as they attempt to swing voters appeal to a particular candidate. In 2012, conservative super PACs focused ad campaigns on undecided voters in battleground states who liked President Obama. Those undecided voters were seen as a crucial element for a GOP victory. Swing states tend to have a higher voter turnout which potentially correlates to more people having educated political views in those areas. However, such people are less likely to swing against the party line based on an advertisement campaign alone, which helps explain the results from voter opinion polls that revealed less than desired influence from the efforts put forth by super PACs.

         A critical factor to consider is a diminishing marginal return to campaign ads which Jamelle Bouie, a reporter with the Wall Street Journal asserts, "the more you saturate the airwaves, the less effective advertising becomes" (Bouie). Negative ad campaigns which tend to cause more frustration among voters are particularly less effective. Neil King Jr. with the Wall Street Journal notes that two of the largest super PACs supporting Romney, Americans for Prosperity and Restore Our Future, spent $18 million attempting to make Romney more competitive in Michigan and Pennsylvania, yet President Obama led by 10% in Pennsylvania and 8% in Michigan (King). Although conservative super PACs spent the most of all outside groups, Romney managed to lose the election after an unexpected campaign gaffe. Romney’s loss proves that while money is an important factor, it is not everything when it comes to winning a presidential election.

A Second Opportunity for Conservative Super PACs

         The lack of return on conservative super PAC investments in the last presidential election should have been a hard lesson learned with what appears to be an astonishing amount of money wasted; nevertheless, super PACs are set to equal or exceed spending by both of the political parties in the 2016 presidential campaign. It appears rich donors are not as politically competent as people might expect. Jamelle Bouie contends, "[rich donors] have tens of millions of dollars to spend, but there’s no guarantee that they have any sense of what makes a campaign effective. . . . To a large degree, they are political berserkers—organizations of tremendous, unfocused power" (Bouie). Furthermore, Bouie points to a piece on Buzz Feed News written by Ruby Cramer and Ben Smith who suggests, "[rich donors] are meddlers and dilettantes, full of terrible advice and inane questions" (Cramer). While rich donors have millions of dollars to spend, they’re of limited usefulness with such unfocused power—which directly impacts the effectiveness of the super PACs largely funded by those rich donors.

         Once again in the current presidential campaign it becomes obvious that money alone is not enough to claim political victory. The super PAC, Right to Rise USA who supports Jeb Bush, spent $32 million in an attempt to bring new hope into his campaign, but so far those efforts have failed. On the other hand, Marco Rubio continues to climb in the polls without any significant expenditure from his supporting super PACs. In comparison, democratic super PACs also don’t seem to have any real influence at this point in the campaign. Emilie Stigliani, a reporter for the Burlington Free Press, observed the super PAC Correct The Record, who supports Hillary Clinton, paid for a poll to be performed after the second democratic debate. The poll results were in favor of Clinton winning the debate; however the pollster said that the super PAC had no sway in the results. They claim that all questions and poll respondents were subjectively chosen by the compensated polling firm, Public Policy Polling. This contrasted to online surveys that showed Bernie Sanders won the debate in a landslide, according to a spokesperson from the Sanders campaign (Stigliani). A super PAC who expects unbiased poll results when they fund the poll themselves is an example of unfocused and poor sense displayed by wealthy donors expenditure demands of the super PACs they support.

         The danger of these modern factions backed by wealthy elites like the Koch brothers are becoming more concerning in the 2016 presidential campaign. The Koch brothers are known for their extreme political involvement and ties to conservative interest groups with their primary goals to reduce regulation, corporate taxes, and the size of government. Nicholas Confessore, a political reporter with the New York Times, notes the amount of money the Koch brothers plan to spend in the 2016 presidential election is set to match both parties' spending, "an unparalleled effort by coordinated outside groups to shape a presidential election that is already on track to be the most expensive in history" (Confessore). The Koch brothers persistent attempts to buy what are supposed to be elected positions in government—especially the White House—are incredibly bold and dangerous. Although the wealthy elite are a minority, they are nevertheless a powerful minority in which James Madison exemplified as those “who are united and actuated by a common impulse of passion with the unequal distribution of property being the most common source” (Madison). Despite the fact that evidence shows super PACs have so far lacked the influence that proponents claim they have, it is important to recognize that they have collected far more money than they have spent so far in the 2016 campaign.

The Best Opportunity at Success

         The real success of super PACs looks to be more promising in down-ticket congressional races. These results were seen in the 2014 midterms when Republicans took control of the Senate for the first time in eight years. Groups associated with Karl Rove and the Koch brothers were among the biggest winners. An article posted on Slate by Michael Beckel et. al., acknowledges Rove’s super PAC, American Crossroads, helped six of the ten supported candidates claim victory. The Koch brothers had similar success with five out of the nine candidates supported winning their race (Beckel). Lee Zeldin running for New York’s 1st congressional district in the 2014 midterms enjoyed similar success when a wealthy hedge fund chief donated to a single-candidate super PAC, securing Zeldin’s GOP nomination and eventual election (Eggen).

         Super PACs were now being reported as a crucial ingredient to win a congressional race, according to Dan Eggen, the political campaigns editor with the Washington Post (Eggen). The amount of money spent by single-candidate super PACs in congressional races was three times greater in 2012 at $30.8 million, compared to $9.3 million just two years prior. The increased support to single-candidate super PACs continues an upward trend in spite of the failed influence of larger super PACs in the last presidential election. Given the national fanfare and spotlight on presidential elections, wealthy donors have realized that focused spending in down-ticket races is the best road to success. The results can be attributed to the fact that advertising campaigns are better suited for lesser known candidates in races that receive little attention in comparison to an already highly publicized presidential election.

Conclusion

         The evidence collectively shows that money can have an impact on the outcome of some elections, but it does not guarantee political victory. The presidential campaigns proved to be tougher for super PACs to have the desired influence that rich donors had hoped for—given the popularity of the executive race and the amount of money candidates are able to raise from traditional methods. Because the amount of money raised by super PACs is expected to match or exceed that of the parties’ campaign for the first time in history, it remains to be seen if super PACs will have more influence in the 2016 presidential election than they did in 2012. More predictable success was seen in tight congressional races in which candidates who knew wealthy people willing to contribute large sums of money had a considerable advantage over those candidates who did not have wealthy contributors. The impact of increased control over congressional elections becomes quite disturbing when considering who is spending the money. As large corporations and elite Americans increase the sums of money they contribute in order to protect their self-serving bias, and as super PACs shift more focus on congressional races, there will be an ever changing landscape in political finance, and quite likely, legislation that favors those wealthy elite.

Works Cited

Beckel, Michael, Carrie Levine, and Dave Levinthal. “Political Dividends”.
         Slate. (2014). Web. 22 November 2015.

Bouie, Jamelle. "One reason not to worry too much about Super PAC money".
         The Washington Post. (2012). Web. 22 November 2015.

Confessore, Nicholas. "Koch Brothers’ Budget of $889 Million for 2016 Is on Par With
         Both Parties’ Spending". The New York Times. (2015). Web. 14 November 2015.

Cramer, Ruby, and Ben Smith. "The Incredibly Dumb Political Spending Of 2012".
         Buzz Feed News. (2012). Web. 22 November 2015.

Eggen, Dan. “The Influence Industry: Congressional Incumbents Start Attracting super PACs”.
         The Washington Post. (2011). Web. 14 November 2015

King, Niel Jr. "Super PAC Influence Falls Short Of Aims". The Wall Street Journal.
         (2012). Web. 22 November 2015.

Madison, James. “Federalist 10.”
         Constitution Society, (1998). Web. 30 October 2015.

OpenSecrets.org. “Presidential Race”.
         OpenSecrets.org. (2012). Web. 30 October 2015.

Stingliani, Emilie. “Pollster: Clinton super PAC had no sway in results”.
         Burlington Free Press. (2015). Web. 21 November 2015.

Wikipedia. “Citizens United v. FEC”.
         wikipedia.com. (2010). Web. 30 October 2015.

Political Polarization: 91st v. 114th Congress

     What is political polarization? According to Ezra Klein, an editor-in-chief at Vox, "political polarization simply measures overlap between the two parties. A high level of political polarization means that Republicans agree with Republicans and that Democrats agree with Democrats" (Klein). When there is little polarization, members from both parties are more likely to compromise; however, today's highly polarized political landscape has led to an attitude of unyielding from party lines—largely attributed to current ideological perspectives in Congress.

     The ideological differences from past to present are glaringly apparent when comparing the 91st Congress—arguably the least polarized since the late 1800s—to the current 114th Congress. The country was facing major civil and economic struggles in the years prior to and during the 91st Congress. The unpopular Vietnam war, civil rights protests, increasing crime, and an economic recession were among those struggles; however, the 91st Congress managed to avoid deep polarization. They successfully passed an impressive list of major legislation, including the historic Equal Protection Act which guaranteed equal protection for women. Although the act was never ratified by enough states and eventually died, the 91st Congress maintained amazing cooperation, even though a Republican president resided in the White House while both chambers were under Democratic control.

      In contrast, the number of bills passed in the 114th Congress is lackluster when compared to a more cooperative 91st Congress. It is hard to imagine the 114th Congress finding the necessary bipartisan coalitions to pass as much significant legislation, even if faced with the same struggles of the 1960s and 70s. Arguably they face similar economic challenges, considering the mounting deficit leading to government shutdowns. There is also the unpopular wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that still act like an anchor on the economy, dragging it deeper into the mud, yet polarization remains at an all time high. Clio Andris, a researcher at Pennsylvania State University writes, "partisanship or non-cooperation in the U.S. Congress has been increasing exponentially for over 60 years with no sign of abating or reversing"; a view shared among his peers in a research article titled, "The Rise of Partisanship and Super-Cooperators in the U.S. House of Representatives", published on PLOS ONE (Andris).

     How far back can today's deep polarization be traced? Ezra Klein points to a 1950s report, "calling on the two parties to sharpen their disagreements so that the American people had a clearer choice when casting their ballots" (Klein). This appears to be a fundamental change between the 91st and 114th Congress with members more stubbornly following the party lines, often times in spite of the other side. Compounding matters further, voters are all too willing to vote for more partisan members to suit their own individualized support of legislation. As a consequence, an already divisive Congress is left to move further apart as they lack the ability to compromise on things as fundamental as their own rules, let alone legislation of any significant impact. While groups like the Tea Party may appear to be the root of polarization, studies show that such groups were born from the shift towards the lack of cooperation, yet they feed off of and contribute to the polarized nature of today's Congress. It’s like a runaway train with no one at the wheel: there is no stopping it until it derails.

Works Cited
Andris, Clio, David Lee, Marcus J. Hamilton, Mauro Martino, Christian E. Gunning, and
     John Armistead Selden. "The Rise of Partisanship and Super-Cooperators
     in the U.S. House of Representatives". PLOS ONE. (2015). Web. 9 Nov 2015.

Klien, Ezra. "Congressional Dysfunction". Vox. (2015). Web. 9 Nov 2015