The millionaires and billionaires who gave nearly $500 million to independent groups in the race to elect Mitt Romney and other Republicans not only bet on the wrong party, they bet on the wrong tactic. They believed that an endless drumbeat of television advertisements would be enough to drive voters away from President Obama and Democratic policies.
It did not work. Democrats not only won the White House, they increased their majority in the Senate and added to their numbers in the House. Although Democratic outside groups spent more than $200 million on ads, the tactic that proved most effective — particularly as practiced by the Obama campaign and the party — was identifying voters in key states and getting them to the polls.
There is something supremely cynical about the notion among Republican conservatives that they could use their ability to make unlimited contributions to "super PACs" and shadowy social-welfare groups to buy an election. It views voters as a flock of sheep, easily hypnotized by misleading ads, willing to believe whatever wealthy industrialists tell them about taxes, jobs and health care.
Granted, television ads have long played an excessive role in American politics, substituting cheap accusations for discourse, but this was the year they went too far. In state after swing state, voters said they were overwhelmed by the din of ads and tuned it all out.
That meant the biggest-spending conservative groups were trounced. American Crossroads, the super PAC founded by Karl Rove, spent $104 million in the general election, but none of its candidates won. The United States Chamber of Commerce spent $24 million backing Republicans in 15 Senate races; only two of them won. Sheldon Adelson, the casino mogul, spent $53 million on nine Republican candidates, eight of whom lost.
The failure of this tactic could have important effects in future elections. Big givers are likely to be more skeptical when people like Mr. Rove come calling. Independent groups cannot coordinate get-out-the-vote drives with campaigns, but may begin thinking about how better to use their money to target voters and build grass-roots efforts, a more positive goal than endless attack ads.
The outcome of 2012, however, does not mean that unlimited outside spending can now be considered a benign force. The biggest danger of allowing the wealthy such an outsized voice has always been that the money binds them closer to politicians, and creates a sense of obligation. Donors gave $64 million to Priorities USA Action, the super PAC set up by Mr. Obama's former aides, and many of them, including five unions that each gave more than $1 million, will expect to be rewarded.
Many lawmakers in the next Congress know full well that they will need support from outside groups, and donors played on that fear. Last month, for example, Chevron gave $2.5 million to the Congressional Leadership Fund, a super PAC linked to Speaker John Boehner, which has spent more than $9 million to elect House Republicans. As noted recently by Representative Steve Israel, the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the donation can be seen as a "payoff" to the House for protecting taxpayer subsidies to Big Oil.
It is encouraging to see that even a few Republican lawmakers are starting to realize the corrupt flood of cash needs to be stopped. There is talk of new legislation to require disclosure of donors by shadowy groups, and of the need to re-examine donation limits. A backlash against the damaging power of big money cannot come too soon.
Anda sedang membaca artikel tentang
Editorial: A Landslide Loss for Big Money
Dengan url
http://opinimasyarakota.blogspot.com/2012/11/editorial-landslide-loss-for-big-money.html
Anda boleh menyebar luaskannya atau mengcopy paste-nya
Editorial: A Landslide Loss for Big Money
namun jangan lupa untuk meletakkan link
Editorial: A Landslide Loss for Big Money
sebagai sumbernya
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar