We in Connecticut will likely not experience this first hand, except to the extent there’s some spillover from the Senate race in Massachusetts, but it looks like a pattern is developing in Iowa. The big money guys with the Superpacs are taking care of the negative ads, while the beneficiaries of those ads, mostly Willard (1%) Romney, can appear to be above the fray, needing to say they approve of only the positive stuff their own campaigns put out. It’s a sort of non-coordinated coordination. The Balloon Juice blogger at the link suggests that over time this might result in different fund raising patterns for the two parties.
I don’t know how much Citizens United has helped cause the rise of the SuperPac, but this seems to represent a new direction in politics, and perhaps one that will allow Republican elites to maintain some control of the party. Outsiders with strong grassroots support, like Ron Paul can raise a lot of money from small donors and still get blown away in the money race by big institutional donations to SuperPacs.
This also de-incentives Republican efforts to expand their small donor base in general elections. It will be interesting if, in 5 or 10 years, Democrats dominate the small donor direct-to-campaign (and party committee) game while Republicans rely mostly on big donors. Things are already headed in that direction.
There may be some truth in this, and while it would appear to be the case that it will leave the Democrats at a disadvantage, there may be a silver lining. The disadvantage is obvious. In the general elections those SuperPacs will swivel to attacking Democrats, and there won’t be a commensurate response from our side. On the other hand, if Democrats are beholden to small donors, they may actually start advocating for progressive policies, since that will be where the money is. There is a limit to what money can do. In Iowa it is sinking Newt, but then, that was only a matter of time. No amount of money appears sufficient to make Mr. 1% a popular guy, however and, call me an optimist, but I don’t think money will be able to take down Elizabeth Warren. Moreover, many voters, particularly the young, are getting their information from the Internet. Rather than being passive receptacles of ceaselessly bombarded propaganda, they seek out their own information sources, so perhaps-at least we can hope-the mass media dominance of the corporations will have less impact. Of course, the corporations are intent on getting control of the net, and, with the help of politicians of all stripes, they may do so, in which case this whisper of a hope may vanish.
Post a Comment