Super PACs, the elephant in the room

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

Hey, the monthly subject is money in politics, right? OK then...

Newt Gingrich and Super PACs. Discuss.

Kidding... Well, I think THE Newt has something like a guardian angel of some sorts. In the form of a rich tycoon named Sheldon Adelson who for some reason adores The Newt. See, our angel owns several casinos in Vegas. And he's such a big fan of The Newt that he keeps opening his wallet again and again, and splashing millions to prop up his fave Newtster. Like last week when he dug up $10 million and donated it to Newt's super-PAC (which he does not collaborate with in any way whatsoever, huh huh). In fact Newt would've probably dropped out of the race a looong time ago if it wasn't for his wealthy guardian angel. Just look at his record: he only won 2 states, one of them his own home state Georgia. Virtually everywhere else he's come way behind the frontrunners. Curiously, Mr Richy-Angel has said himself that he's against wealthy people tilting the election in one way or another, but he also added that he'll keep doing that same thing, as long as it's allowed by law. And there's the catch. "It's wrong but it's allowed, so I'm in!" Very convenient.

Of course the US election law says that individuals and corporations cannot donate more than $2000 to a politician's campaign - at least not directly. And here's the catch. Because, you see, actually Adelson ain't giving the money directly to Newt, nah... he's just funding a group called Winning Our Future, which happens to be what we now call a super political action committee (super-PAC). A brand new species in the political zoo.

As many may know, the law that regulates how much can be donated to politicians dates back to the 70s, just after Watergate. The idea was that money corrupts and big contributions could be seen as a form of bribery. Which is why foreigners cannot donate to US politicians btw. And that makes sense of course. But some smart-heads who are magicians in the law-twisting and law-crafting biz were sure to find loopholes in that law pretty soon, as is always their job. For instance they figured they could create political committees that were dedicated to a single topic or purpose, or maybe two at the most. And of course that was OK with the freedom of speech.

In 2004 these groups got in the focus when the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth made a huge campaign (including negative ads) againt Kerry, questioning his own account on his participation in Vietnam. It worked pretty well, Kerry quickly lost a lot of his popularity and eventually, the election too. Subsequently one of those groups was sued for alleged crimes against the election law. The verdict was that it was fined by then the case reached as high as the SCOTUS. And the SCOTUS eventually allowed this kind of support. But they didn't just stop there. In reality they gave any individual, company or union the right to finance these new super-PACs, provided they didn't "coordinate directly" in their activities with the politician they were supporting. An indirect form of support, so to speak.

Even then there were dire warnings about the implications from such a decision. Obama was against too, and lots of Democrats resisted the new law. The GOP was mostly in favor, because they regarded the super-PACs a chance to counter the Dems' ability of harnessing contributions in other ways (through small contributions from the general public which the GOP had difficulties with). In 2008 when he was running for Prez, Obama was among the first to reject government campaign contributions during elections. That sort of supports the limits on how much money could be used. If you renounce support, that means there are no limits.

So in a weird way Obama opened the flood gates, and that combined with SCOTUS's decision, to bring a grotesque result. The result is not pretty at all now, and it's exactly what many had feared. A large chunk of the support now comes from a tiny clique of super-wealthy donors. In fact Newt is not the only one being in the pockets of the richy-rich. Peter Thiel, the co-founder of PayPal has quietly donated $ 2.5 million to a Ron Paul super-PAC called Endorse Liberty; Santorum's super-PAC Red White & Blue Found has received $ 1 mill from Foster Friess (the latter once joked that "You shouldn't tell my wife how much I've given him, she's gonna kill me"; well, he also dropped some other jokes about women and pills which weren't as enjoyable and even backfired a bit on Santorum himself, but Santorum copped out by saying Friess wasn't directly involved with his campaign, so yeah)...

Granted, the campaigns also collect money in the old-fashioned way - whoever is able to persuade large numbers of people to donate, and not everyone is. And granted, a lot of that money is needed to run the technical part of the campaign: like staff salaries, traveling expenses, hotel rents and of course TV ads. All that deserves to be transparent to the public. And there's of course the condition that the respective candidate should say "I am X and I approve of this message" at the end of every ad. But what about the super-PAC ads? That condition doesn't exist there. A candidate doesn't have to identify themselves with such an ad, after all it's completely "independent", right? And that's what has allowed some pretty nasty ads to appear under the hat of those super-PACs. Because they can afford to be more negative. I wouldn't hasten to judge on this campaign and whether it's been the most negative one in history, because I don't have so much info myself. So I'll leave this on you to judge. But from a foreigner's standpoint, it does come across as extremely, even ridiculously negative, sometimes juvenile and grotesque. And I'm saying it as someone whose country is not exempt of political shit-slinging and hits under the belt, either. But I'd at least argue that super-PACs having their hands almost completely untied by the lack of restrictions of association, has contributed to this tendency. Not that people are that stupid as to not figure out who's who, and who's connected with whom, but still something tells me they're enjoying all this circus.

WashPo recently concluded that the present campaign will be much tougher than the one the GOP had in 2008. Back then 6% of the ads were negative between the Republicans. Now that per cent is near 50%, Romney and his Restore Our Future super-PAC being the most blatant side in this respect. When Gingrich took the lead for a while in December (around the Iowa polls), the mud-slinging commenced instantaneously, and ROF super-PAC was the primary gun doing the firing.

Ron Paul's super-PAC was sure to follow suit too, it practically did some nice job for Romney for quite a while, and this provoked Newt to start firing back because the negative campaign from all sides was quickly sinking him. Then the GOP talking heads (many of them using FOX) ran a ruler across his knuckles saying that he was unnecessarily eroding the Republican discourse - how funny, isn't it? In result of all that, Santorum was the big winner and from an obscure candidate he started climbing up and now he's Romney's primary rival. But he wasn't spared the mud slinging either, as soon as he raised his head a bit in the polls.

All of this is justly making the Republicans very concerned about their candidates tearing each other apart (but we also remember the fight between Obama and Hillary that got dirty towards the end). Gingrich's Winning Our Future super-PAC has said there was initially a lot of enthusiasm in the GOP but by the time Romney has finished his rivals there won't be anyone left to fight Obama because everyone will be deadly bruised and tired.

On the other hand, there's the argument that this fighting will toughen the nominee for the general election, and Obama might not be fully aware of what's coming at him. I don't know really, I'm split on this.

But the super-PACs turning the campaign into a huge mud slinging contest is not the only problem. Realistically, all the money and all those ads make it possible for Newt to stay in the competition way beyond his capabilities, his capacities and actual popularity. The weird rules about the distribution of delegates were also re-made for this election and it's another reason for the candidates keeping on with the fighting as long as they have the cash resources, regardless of the actual poll results. The possible result could be that this year's GOP nomination might not be decided until the Tampa convention, a thing that hasn't happened in a while.

And on a side note, an open convention could mean that anyone could run for nomination, including some weird birds like one very (inf)famous Grizzly Momma from Alaska (lol, I sooo much hope she will just for the lulz!)

And that's just the primaries, folks. The real big battle is in autumn. The real thing. And guess what? Obama, who at first was firmly against the super-PACs and the SCOTUS decision, has now changed his mind and said he'd be "compelled" to accept a super-PAC kind of support, if he's to keep up with his contender in the big race at all. He'll have to play by the dirty rules if he's to survive, that's his argument. How very convenient, right? And we do know that there's no shortage of super-wealthy Democrats, either. So we're headed towards a super-PAC mega-war between both sides.

So the scene is already arranged for a very dirty campaign with lots of shady money in it, money whose donors will be sure to rub it into the faces of their respective chosen puppets, and to remind them of it later and ask for big favors. It's like betting on horses and hoping for return. Of course it has always been like that, but now it'll be brought to unseen heights (lows?) That's the nice price that'll have to be paid for this sacred cow that's the Freedom of Speech that always serves as a mantra and an excuse for everything. Well, at least according to the SCOTUS and all those happy wealthy chaps sitting in their offices and rubbing their hands in delight in wait of the big circus. And meanwhile, the common folk will still be living in the sweet delusion that they're having a "Democracy".

Comments

[dwer.livejournal.com]

The argument for Obama to use a Super Pac is just like the argument about the american people rising up against the military.

You don't bring a knife to a gun fight. There's absolutely no point in hamstringing himself.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

So the scene is already arranged for a very dirty campaign with lots of shady money in it, money whose donors will be sure to rub it into the faces of their respective chosen puppets, and to remind them of it later and ask for big favors. It's like betting on horses and hoping for return. Of course it has always been like that, but now it'll be brought to unseen heights (lows?) That's the nice price that'll have to be paid for this sacred cow that's the Freedom of Speech that always serves as a mantra and an excuse for everything. Well, at least according to the SCOTUS and all those happy wealthy chaps sitting in their offices and rubbing their hands in delight in wait of the big circus. And meanwhile, the common folk will still be living in the sweet delusion that they're having a "Democracy".

As noted the last time we talked about this, however, this is having the added benefit of voters hearing more voices and more points of view. When you broaden speech rights for all, you introduce more voices into the campaign. If it were not for Super PACs, Newt and Santorum would be out right now, and Paul would be somewhat hamstrung. Instead, we have a protracted battle where the voters are hearing viewpoints from and in favor of four viewpoints as opposed to the one or two we're used to. There is no downside to this whatsoever.

All indications are that this will continue in the general. Instead of being limited to hearing from small groups only consisting of those who can afford to donate directly, we'll see a wealth of spending and, thus, advertising from a variety of different groups on both sides of the aisle talking about the issues that matter to them and the issues that they feel should matter to you. No longer will the candidates or the media alone be able to dictate the discussion, but rather private citizens have an increased opportunity to push their narratives, and the rest of us have the opportunity to discuss them.

We need to stop being scared of Super PACs and expanded speech. The GOP primary is proving the pro-speech people right, and is proving the anti-speech people wrong in its impact - we're benefiting heavily from the new and different voices in the political process.

As an aside, it's interesting that this is resulting in so much more speech. When the limits on direct contributions eventually disappear (their incompatibility with the concept of free speech means it's an eventual given) we may run into a situation where those millions go directly to the campaigns, thus reducing the amount of speech in the sphere. This is not to say that we should favor artificial limits on speech for this outcome, but it's an interesting thought.

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

Diversity of viewpoints would have occurred, had any group of people been able to raise a candidate through a broad base making small donations and actually being represented. What you have now is a few candidates representing the interests of a few businessmen, and the broad base still remaining unrepresented. Even if it had attempted to raise such a candidate of its own, he'd be out-spent by these big players who have the millions. A thousand factory workers from Middlevillestown cannot compete with Sheldon Adelson, Peter Thiel and Foster Friess. They could try, but their voices would still be drowned by the loud campaign run by the super-wealthy.

Super-PAC are not an evil thing per se. Intransparency and lack of accountability is the problem there. We need to know who these candidates are really speaking for - who's writing them the checks, why, what is expected of them, and how are they going to play their role in the game.

Pro-speech vs anti-speech sounds like a false dichotomy to me. It may be about loud speech. And I don't think the ordinary people have access to loud speech. I mean they could shout all they want in their remote corner but if they don't have the figurative megaphon, that exercise seems useless.

It's sad that this is passing for "free" speech.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Pro-speech vs anti-speech sounds like a false dichotomy to me. It may be about loud speech. And I don't think the ordinary people have access to loud speech. I mean they could shout all they want in their remote corner but if they don't have the figurative megaphon, that exercise seems useless.

Bingo. I'm not sure how 10 more ads represents 'diversity' if it's all from the same source. Some people are confusing the increased value of money in the political process for increased representation.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

It may be all from the same source, but it gives more people a broader platform. It may also not be diverse in speaker, but diverse in message, as opposed to simply coming from the campaigns who have one speaker with one message.

Not to mention that my point is that, without the Super PACs, we wouldn't be hearing from Newt or Santorum much anymore, if at all. 4 is more than 1 or 2.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

It may be all from the same source, but it gives more people a broader platform.

It gives them the same platform.

It may also not be diverse in speaker, but diverse in message, as opposed to simply coming from the campaigns who have one speaker with one message.

Nope, it's the same message.

Not to mention that my point is that, without the Super PACs, we wouldn't be hearing from Newt or Santorum much anymore, if at all. 4 is more than 1 or 2.

So clearly unelectable hacks are getting more airtime because of Super PACs? I'm not seeing the positive here.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

It gives them the same platform.

A broader platform for more people, though. That's the part you ignored.

Nope, it's the same message.

Not necessarily. The campaigns may have different priorities than the PACs.

So clearly unelectable hacks are getting more airtime because of Super PACs? I'm not seeing the positive here.

More voices.

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

It's not a more diverse platform. Only a larger megaphon still shouting the same stuff.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Again, the same number of people are represented no matter how much money a Super PAC invests. The same number of voices.

They're just louder.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Diversity of viewpoints would have occurred, had any group of people been able to raise a candidate through a broad base making small donations and actually being represented.

Except that it's never worked out that way.

What you have now is a few candidates representing the interests of a few businessmen, and the broad base still remaining unrepresented.

You have more now than you would under the old system, however. Without Super PAC support, Newt and Santorum would have dropped out two months ago.

A thousand factory workers from Middlevillestown cannot compete with Sheldon Adelson, Peter Thiel and Foster Friess. They could try, but their voices would still be drowned by the loud campaign run by the super-wealthy.

I fundamentally disagree. A thousand factory workers giving $100 each is $100k, enough for ad buys. Nothing is "drowned out" in this case.

Super-PAC are not an evil thing per se. Intransparency and lack of accountability is the problem there. We need to know who these candidates are really speaking for - who's writing them the checks, why, what is expected of them, and how are they going to play their role in the game.

Well, in a way, we do, because they're being voluntarily transparent. But at what point did anonymous speech become bad? Are we no longer supposed to have anonymous speech?

Pro-speech vs anti-speech sounds like a false dichotomy to me. It may be about loud speech. And I don't think the ordinary people have access to loud speech. I mean they could shout all they want in their remote corner but if they don't have the figurative megaphon, that exercise seems useless.

The problem is that those in opposition want "equal" speech, which is inherently unfree. Spending millions doesn't mean you actually get heard, either - I don't think the millions Santorum's Super PAC has spent has reached my ears yet, for example, and it's certainly not making me favor him more or, say, Romney less.

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

Except that's exactly how it works in the more civilized countries, don't know about yours though.

Newt and Santorum would have dropped out when they realized they don't have the public's support. Now they're fooled into believing they have it because of the arificial propping up by individual millionaires, who'll be surely demanding their bounty later - unelected guys with their personal agendas who don't feel obliged to report to the people. It's still "We the people" as far as I remember.

100,000 is nothing compared to the millions these guys are getting from those millionaires. Those workers would've collected 100,000 with huge pains, while these guys receive 1 mill, 5 mill, even 10 mill on a whim. If you're failing to see how this doesn't tilt the process, it's only your problem.

Transparency is essential in politics, period. The alternative creates corruption. That's not democracy, it's oligarchy.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

They could demand, but since there wouldn't be any traceability, there's no onus on the politician to pay any favor back, since there wasn't a favor there in the first place.

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

Yes there was.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Except that's exactly how it works in the more civilized countries, don't know about yours though.

Ooh, playing the civilized card, eh?

But seriously, I'll take our expansive speech rights over any other nation's.

Those workers would've collected 100,000 with huge pains, while these guys receive 1 mill, 5 mill, even 10 mill on a whim. If you're failing to see how this doesn't tilt the process, it's only your problem.

I don't see it tilting the process at all. Money doesn't win elections, fortunately.

Transparency is essential in politics, period. The alternative creates corruption. That's not democracy, it's oligarchy.

So should we have to declare our vote publicly too?

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

Yes, the civilized world where people are not left in the wild because they've made "the wrong choices in life".

It does tilt the process. It's just that you refuse to see it. But that's hardly a surprise.

So should we have to declare our vote publicly too?

Now that's just dumb. Would you like me to respond seriously or shall I emulate your level of discourse?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

It does tilt the process. It's just that you refuse to see it. But that's hardly a surprise.

Well, tell us how.

Now that's just dumb. Would you like me to respond seriously or shall I emulate your level of discourse?

Well, where does transparency end? If transparency in politics trumps speech, what doesn't it trump?

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

Transparency vs free speech is yet another false dichotomy. Transparency is an essential part of democracy. Agree: Y/N?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Transparency is an essential part of good government. Anonymous speech is also an essential part of democracy.

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

Transparency in elections is essential to repersentative democracy. The alternative is oligarchy.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I disagree completely. The representative government in place is completely incompatible with oligarchy, so the latter cannot occur simply because there are anonymous donors.

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

I know you disagree. That still doesn't remove the fact that intransparency is an essential part of establishing an oligarchy.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

So is not having a representative government.

Which still brings me back to my original point - where do you draw the line on transparency, and why?

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

This is not a representative government. It's a few hand-picked "candidates" who serve the interests of a few wealthy cliques.

I draw the line at full disclosure. The origin of every dollar in politics should be known. If you're funding a politician, your agenda should be known to the public, period. You can still have your complete freedom of speech all you want. It creates a healthier medium for representative government, from a practical standpoint it creates more trust in the public to their politicians, and ultimately a better functioning democracy.

And where do you draw the line?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

This is not a representative government. It's a few hand-picked "candidates" who serve the interests of a few wealthy cliques.

Well, that's a pretty sizable disagreement. I'm not sure how to convince you otherwise.

And where do you draw the line?

Our representatives votes should be public. I see no reason why the activities of private citizens should be monitored.

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

You don't have to convince me, and neither do I. I'm perfectly OK with that.

The reason is that they're electing people into public office. It's not a private business. These things should be known because the public directly depends on who those elected people are and what their decisions are based on.

[oslo.livejournal.com]

As noted the last time we talked about this, however, this is having the added benefit of voters hearing more voices and more points of view.

True, but these are all "points of view" that have been selected by big-money donors who want to achieve specific political outcomes. I'm not sure that's an improvement on the status quo.

If it were not for Super PACs, Newt and Santorum would be out right now,

And why is that? Could it have anything to do with their inability to organize a wide base of monetary support from small-money donors who want to see them elected?

There is no downside to this whatsoever.

Because four is greater than one! Great analysis!

Instead of being limited to hearing from small groups only consisting of those who can afford to donate directly, we'll see a wealth of spending and, thus, advertising from a variety of different groups on both sides of the aisle talking about the issues that matter to them and the issues that they feel should matter to you. No longer will the candidates or the media alone be able to dictate the discussion, but rather private citizens have an increased opportunity to push their narratives, and the rest of us have the opportunity to discuss them.

Lofty rhetoric, but I'm skeptical it'll pan out like this. More money from more interested lobbies, sure. More misinformation, more targeted marketing, more confusion, sure. "Private citizens," by which we mean, "very wealthy private citizens," maybe.

The GOP primary is proving the pro-speech people right, and is proving the anti-speech people wrong in its impact - we're benefiting heavily from the new and different voices in the political process.

Well, you're leaving the "anti-speech" position unarticulated here. And what was the claim? Well, it was that private lobbies and money would have a greater role to play in elections. That's indisputably been the case, by your own admission - we have people now in the race who would never have gotten this far if it weren't for a few benefactors that believed in them. What lessons do you think the parties and aspiring politicians will draw from this election, but that underdogs' best chance at the big time is to craft an image that's just idiosyncratic enough to catch some billionaire's enthusiastic support?

You don't think there's anything detrimental from a lively and active political discourse, and I would tend to agree, at least in the abstract. The question is whether this fairly describes what's happening now. Are we really narrowing down to the best candidates? Is all of this cash even being well-spent?

When the limits on direct contributions eventually disappear (their incompatibility with the concept of free speech means it's an eventual given)

Oh, great, another confident assertion on the state of constitutional law. Not a leg to stand on, as usual.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

True, but these are all "points of view" that have been selected by big-money donors who want to achieve specific political outcomes. I'm not sure that's an improvement on the status quo.

The status quo also lacks those voices. More = improvement.

And why is that? Could it have anything to do with their inability to organize a wide base of monetary support from small-money donors who want to see them elected?

Probably.

Well, you're leaving the "anti-speech" position unarticulated here. And what was the claim? Well, it was that private lobbies and money would have a greater role to play in elections.

And you're leaving the rest of it out - that this is a bad thing, which it clearly has not been.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

But why oh whyyy can't I, as a foreigner, donate to someone I like in the US election? This is a violation of my right of free speech! We want democracy! Amandla awethu!

[musicpsych.livejournal.com]

Wasn't "Winning the Future" an Obama speech theme? Odd from a branding perspective to have "Winning our Future" be Gingrich's Super PAC.

I don't fault Obama for taking whatever funding he can get to help him win. No point in handicapping himself financially for idealism's sake.

I just keep thinking, this must be a great time to own a TV or radio station, with all of this Super PAC money coming in.