Democrats have been outspent 7:1 recently:
The $80 million spent so far by groups outside the Democratic and Republican parties dwarfs the $16 million spent at this point for the 2006 midterms. In that election, the vast majority of money – more than 90 percent – was disclosed along with donors’ identities. This year, that figure has fallen to less than half of the total, according to data analyzed by The Washington Post.
Southern Beale
Yes and who is the beneficiary of this largesse? Our media, of course! No wonder our political coverage sucks in this country: the media has a vested interest in creating a political climate where people feel the need to spend $80 million every election.
And don’t expect there to be any major news stories on public financing of elections. That would hit right at their bottom lines.
cmorenc
Have you hugged your corporation today?
Kryptik
All it is is the exercise of free speech! Just…freer than those filthy proles’ speech.
But don’t forget, Soros is an evil evil man trying to steal votes for the Democrats through slush money and yadda yadda.
4tehlulz
To be fair, if you exclude Meg Whitman, the ratio is only 6 to 1.
Linda Featheringill
Yeah, the fat cats are out spending us.
If they ever figure out the effectiveness of the community organizer techniques, we are really done for.
Rhoda
Honestly, the Democrats were stupid not to ram through a bill pushing back on Citizen’s United. They would have gotten good goo government points up the wazoo, independents would have loved it, and it would have tied Republicans closer to the corporations. But they didn’t; because they want the cash too. Just like Democrats learned how to play the Wall Street money game; if they pull out these elections they’re going to demand reciprocity from the corporations.
I’m pretty sure the incremental progress we saw the last two years is going to be the best it’s going to be for a long time as corporations solidify their lock on both parties.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@Rhoda: Yes, it would have been a good thing if the Dems had tried to undo Citizens United. But the “pox on both houses thing” doesn’t make sense considering the numbers up top, and the fact that the losses right now are shaping up to be no worse than any normal midterm. “Democrats are just as bad as Republicans, except they are taking in far less money and relying more on organization” would mean that they not only not equal, but that only one party is representing the people.
Now the issue of 1 corporation == 5 million people, that’s something we’ll have to deal with.
Kryptik
@Belafon (formerly anonevent):
That’s what I freakin’ hate about the whole ‘Pox on both houses’ attitude. Yes, both sides shoulder blame…but the difference in what they shoulder is like the different between Atlas and a temp stockroom boy shelving frozen food.
PaulW
Make a note: in two years when the Republican-led House has successfully impeached Obama for not being a Republican, and the Bush Tax Cuts are extended to where 80 percent of our 5-trillion deficit is tied completely to just those cuts, and the state of California has been vacated by nearly every person making under $100,000 a year because of the elimination of every social service needed just to survive, and our military forces are hunting for nuclear reactor parts in a war-torn Iran with civilian casualties in the thousands, and every worker who’s not upper management working right at the minimum wage of 3.50 per hour without benefits because the corporations needed to cut salaries and benefits so the CEOs can have another million-dollar bonus, will we be able to look about the ashes of our republic and say “Gosh that was 80 million dollars well spent.”
daveNYC
That would have been great, but I’m not sure how you push back on a SCOTUS decision like that. It’s not like congress can just pass a law that says that X is actually constitutional.
Ash Can
If this funding is done through non-profits, and non-profits don’t have to disclose who their funds are coming from, what’s to stop other countries from basically stepping in and purchasing candidates? Do non-profits have any strictures about accepting money from foreign entities, or disclosing it when they do?
The right-wing old-boys club on the Supreme Court is going to waste this nation yet.
daveNYC
Effectively nothing.
Moses2317
@Linda Featheringill: I’m not too worried about them becoming effective community organizers, as that would require that the right actually stands up for the community.
Stories like this to show why it is so ridiculous that the Republicans have filibustered the DISCLOSE Act, which would require that voters at least be told who is spending all of this money on political advertising.
Winning Progressive
cmorenc
@Belafon
CORRECTED VERSION:
the whole “Fox on both houses” attitude.
Yeah, I hate that too.
Steve
@Rhoda:
Every single Democratvoted for the DISCLOSE Act. Every last one of them. This was the second attempt after it was filibustered earlier in the session. I dislike corporate Dems as much as the next guy, but I don’t think your conclusion is well-founded in this case.
And I wished we lived in a world where Independents would love Democrats for their position on this issue, but unfortunately I don’t think enough people care for it to make a difference.
Moses2317
Also too, keep in mind that the 7:1 figure is only for spending from outside organizations, not by the parties and candidates, where Dems are kicking the Republicans’ butts. For example, the DNC outraised the RNC $16 million to $5.5 million last month alone.
Winning Progressive
Nick
@Rhoda:
Well, they did hold two votes for it in the Senate, both times failing to break the filibuster.
What ever happened to “Well, I’d admire the Dems for fighting, even if they failed.”
Oh right, that was bullshit.
peach flavored shampoo
Now there’s an analogy I simply did not see coming.
fucen tarmal
so, i wonder when the next case to test the issue comes before the roberts court, if they will see how they erred in effectively legislating from the bench, and being a little too activist for their lifetime of rhetoric, and will narrow their decision, or perhaps change their minds, based on the reality of what their interpretation yields.
i also wonder if its true that unicorns poop glitter and streamers.
cleek
it is as the founders intended.
PurpleGirl
Non-profits do have to disclose their donors on their Form 990 tax returns, which are public documents. What non-profits often do is say the donation is anonymous but they give the amount.
Non-profits do have to disclose foreign donations, again on on the Form 990. Enacted after September 11th, they also have to certify that no donations were accepted from potential terrorist organizations (Right now I’m spacing the exact language used on corporate/foundation forms for this). Note: Individual tax returns are private but not those of certain corporations and non-profits. When I worked for a non-profit, I kept a stack of 990s on hand to give to potential donors.
Tommy
I of course can only speak for where I live. Rural southern Illinois. And I fast forward by most commercials (got to love DVRs). But the commercials I’ve seen for Republicans just dwarf those from “our side.” And almost none of those are from the candidate themselves.
In the end when they have the legal disclaimer on the bottom of the ad I often pause it to see who is actually funding the media buy. Of course, never heard of any of the groups.
The only good news is a month out from the election there has been a huge uptick in Democratic ads. My thinking, as a 20+ year advertising guy, is they knew they didn’t have the funds to compete for the past couple months, so they saved their money to the final weeks to get the highest frequency possible.
geg6
@Steve:
@Nick:
THIS.
cleek
@Steve:
i wish we lived in a world where Democrats were clever enough to tell people – often enough that it sank in – that they voted to keep corporate money out but the GOP blocked them.
Zifnab
@daveNYC:
The DISCLOSE Act was the next best thing to an outright ban. I’m less worried about the massive funding than I am about the corporate secrecy and obscurity.
“Citizens for American Families and Love and Buttercups” sounds a lot less wholesome when it has to end all it’s adds with “Funded by Paramilitary Nuclear Waste Disposal, Inc.”
At the very least, hearing “Sponsored by /CorporationName/” at the end of each ad will remind people exactly whose interests these political ads are meant to serve.
Punchy
@Tommy: Where I live, there’s a disturbing number of ads financed by the Chamber of Commerce, which is really the Chamber of the GOP. And they run some of the nastiest ads.
Tom65
public funding for Federal elections, anyone?
Nick
@Tommy: If I see that goddamn spending commercial with the guy digging and the stupid bitch saying “It doesn’t take an economist to know this isn’t creating jobs” (when every economist admits it is) and then she snidely tells me to read the facts at BankruptingAmerica.org, I might punch someone.
cleek
@Tom65:
how does that stop corporate advocacy?
Tommy
@punchy: Not really seen any Chamber of Commerce ads, which is strange cause I live in the largest District/county in southern Illinois. I should have written down the names of all the “front firms” that are running these darn ads, cause it is a long list of groups I am sure were set-up for no other reason then to run these darn ads.
Many of whichall of which are just flat out brutal attack ads.Linda Featheringill
Has anyone seen Krugman’s article today?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/04/opinion/04krugman.html?_r=1&hp
It’s pertinent to the current discussion.
Nick
@cleek:
I wish we lived in a world where the conduit to get the message from the Democrats to the people weren’t controlled by corporations.
Ash Can
@Tom65: With the SC having ruled that limitations on corporate funding are unconstitutional, I don’t think this is even a real issue at this point. Even if we did have publicly funded elections, the non-profits would be running their ads, because to prevent them from doing so would go against this ruling.
Tommy
@Nick: The other thing I’ve noticed over a lot of campaign cycles, but in this one 24/7, is that when a Republican actually buys a spot they almost NEVER mention they are a Republican. I mean as an advertising guy that would be like me trying to sell a new shoe and mentioning its name and all its benefits, but failing to note it is made by Nike.
daveNYC
But what would stop the International House of Kitten Burgers from setting up a subsidiary called The Fuzzy Kitten Fun Time House, and using that to fund the commercials?
I’m also feeling bitter enough that I’m willing to bet that even if an effective law was passed, the Roberts court would suddenly discover the founders’ deep seated interest in (corporate) privacy.
Nick
@Tommy:
Bob Turner, the dude running against Anthony Weiner, has signed all over the district, bumper stickers, etc. None of them mention he’s a Republican, they all say “Reformer for Congress”
cleek
@Tommy:
during my recent informal survey of south-central NC (aka “driving to the beach and back”), i got to see hundreds of lawn signs. i don’t think a single one mentioned the candidate’s party.
Tommy
@Nick: As a brand advertising dude the whole point of having a “strong” and “well known” brand is to use it to sell shit. I guess this goes without saying, but these folks running in local elections much realize there isn’t a lot of brand equity in the Republican party.
Brighton
My vote means less and less. Four Reasons NOT to vote in November
pRick Sanchez
The thing I’ve noticed is that Nick almost NEVER acknowledges that he thinks that Jews control “the conduit.” I mean, what’s up with that?
El Cid
On the plus side, this makes it easier for Little Tommy Bobo Friedman to imagine that soon our brilliant, world-bestriding yet down-to-Urf CEO’s will help us leap past our petty bickering two party system and use huge wads of cash to talk to us, the American people, directly, to move toward the practical, no-nonsense, tough-decision types of debate we need to be having.
And then the CEO’s will make those decisions and we’ll just need to make sure we learn how to be happy with them, ’cause surely we wouldn’t want to go back to all this bickering between one side that says “Hey, let’s fucking cut all the god-damned rules and let the super-rich blow the fucking economy up,” and the other side which says, “Well, we can’t quite go as far as not letting that happen again, but, how about we somewhat reduce the chances and consequences of more ultra-richies blowing the economy up.”
Zifnab
@Brighton: Lay down and die, then. Or fucking move.
Seriously, though stop the waaaambulance. You’ve got an idea of how the electoral process should work. Pitch the ideas to your friends, find out who likes it. Pitch the idea to your neighbors. Find out how they like it. If you’ve got popular support, start a petition or something. Get your group of like minded citizens engaged. Find other like-minded groups. Then, once you’ve got a solid collection of voters you should go to your elected official and pitch your idea. Once you have an elected (or electable) official willing to show support, start calling other officials and raising support at the administrative level. Get your like-minded supporters to do the same.
This is the process every good idea has to go through before it stops being an idea and starts being a policy.
Martin
If the Supreme Court is going to defend spending by the rich, even when it perverts the goal of Democracy, the only legislative solution is to go after earning by the rich.
Don’t fucking tell me there’s no class warfare going on when our candidate for Governor has spent $120M of her own money to win the office. Time to push back. Let’s see some top marginal rates climb and tie cap gains rates to them.
pRick Sanchez
Zif: Did you actually click on the link and read Brighton’s post, or are you just being a dickhead?
geg6
@Zifnab:
Word. The idiot lives in a reddest of Red States and then bitches that his vote doesn’t count and his solution is a “none of the above and let’s have another election!” option.
Jeebus.
Move to a damn blue or purple state, asshole. GTFO of the basement and do something. But not voting cannot in any way whatsoever be defended or justified.
...now I try to be amused
@Martin:
Damn right. Defund the Right!
300baud
@Brighton: “My vote means less and less. Four Reasons NOT to vote in November.”
Sure, because your vote will mean a whole lot more if you don’t use it. That’s idiocy, and if you actually care about any of the things you mention, you’ll let some air out of your self-regard and do something.
pRick Sanchez
Yeah, fuck voting reform. There is nothing wrong with the Americam voting system, just like their is nothing wrong with the Dems, just like there is nothing wrong with Obama. America: love it or leave it, firebagger!
Steve
@Nick:
Yes indeed. I complain about sad-sack Democratic messaging as much as anyone, but it bears remembering how much the superiority of the GOP message machine is attributable to a well-funded infrastructure. It’s not like you can just wake up one day and decide to have a mighty Wurlitzer.
It’s also worth remembering that messages about process (campaign finance reform, etc.) resonate really well with upscale liberals like myself but don’t necessary hit the sweet spot with other components of the Democratic base. It’s hard to get someone who is hard up for a job to pay attention to “see, the reason you don’t have a job is because the corporate interests fund stealth campaigns to elect Republicans who go on to filibuster Democratic jobs bills…”
Sly
@Brighton:
Stop blogwhoring and join your local party committee. No one will speak to your interests more than you.
Binzinerator
I’m more worried about the corrosive effect this will have on local elections. Every local election from school boards to judges will have the republican tax-cut parroting jesus-freak candidate backed with massive funding. I fear we will see this 7:1 ratio right down to local levels.
daveNYC
Thanks for reminding me that some places elect their judges. I’ll consider the rest of the week officially ruined.
Ash Can
@PurpleGirl: I neglected to say earlier, thanks. This was what I was wondering about. Good to know.
Jamie
Democracy finally died in the US with the Citizens United decision. It’s just that rigor has,t set in just yet.
Jamie
sorry that’s hasn’t set in yet.
lacp
Sitting out elections is a reasonable position if you genuinely don’t give a rat’s ass. I don’t agree with it, but it’s reasonable (and, yes, you should be free to bitch even if you don’t vote – your First Amendment rights don’t require casting ballots).
It’s a terrible position if you’re trying to send a message, because the only message you’re sending is….you don’t give a rat’s ass. No politician has a crystal ball to determine what you’re really thinking; (s)he has to make the assumption that you don’t vote because you don’t care.
lacp
@daveNYC: Yes, and Pennsylvania, where I live, is one of those states. In addition to being elected, they’re also forbidden from stating what their views are, so what you have is a hand-picked collection of party hacks differentiated solely by name and party affiliation. Pretty much the worst system one could dream up – make the voters responsible for selecting people about whom they know (and can know) nothing.
artem1s
@Ash Can:
they can take it but have to have licensing to perform certain types of fundraising, usually in each state. Also, the donor does not get a charitable donation credit which won’t matter to individuals not paying any tax in the US. there are also some limitations on how large of a percentage they can collect from certain sources or limited sources. going over the limits can put their 501 (c) (3) in jeopardy, but this is somewhat self reported and if they don’t it can take the IRS or the AG years to catch up.
artem1s
@PurpleGirl:
its true that 501s don’t have to report donors on 990s. However they are required by law to keep records that they sent the donor an acknowledgment letter and they have to keep records of the gift (copies of checks, envelopes, etc., gift instrument). their is specific wording on the acknowledgment letters is fairly boilerplate. mostly it has to state the amount, who gave it and that the donor didn’t receive any goods or services in return for the gift. Routine audits of 501s involve the auditor randomly choosing a few donations and checking that the organization has the proper paperwork in its records.
lol
@lacp:
At least you get party affiliation. Washington State elects its State Supreme Court justices on a non-partisan basis and if a candidate breaks 50% in the lower turnout September primary, they win and don’t have to compete in the general.
In other words, the perfect environment for corporations to elect their own judges. (See Richard Sanders and the BIAW)
liberal
@Nick:
If the Dems were really fighting, they would have ditched the filibuster.
A Humble Net Slave
@liberal:
Say what?