Where the Super PAC Spending Really Matters

Many electrons and much ink has been spilled to examine the massive amounts of money being spent by third party groups like Super PACs in the presidential race, but where that money really has a huge impact is in the downticket races for the House and Senate. The battle for Sherrod Brown’s seat is a perfect example:

But 2012 is not a normal year—and Brown is not a normal incumbent. Over the last nine months, spending on anti-Brown television ads by super PACs and 501(c)(4) “social welfare” groups such as the Chamber of Commerce, the 60 Plus Association, and Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS has soared to more than $11.5 million; meanwhile, Brown’s average polling lead over his Republican opponent, State Treasurer Josh Mandel, has been cut in half. The FOP’s support is no longer a cherry atop the frontrunner’s sundae; it’s a shield that’s about to get battered in a very brutal, very expensive battle.

Half an hour later, a slightly less jovial Brown tells Newsweek how he’s really feeling today. “I’m disturbed,” he admits. “If it weren’t for all the outside money, this wouldn’t even be a race.”

And nearly all of that money comes from a handful of ultra-rich donors who are making an investment that can only pay off when the candidate they support is elected to office and works diligently to pass laws that boost their profits and net worth. And this has a much larger effect in House and Senate races than it does in the presidential race:

For all Chicago’s complaining, the impact of outside money on the national contest may wind up being minimal; the polls have been static so far, and after a certain point, there are only so many hundreds of millions of dollars that can be pumped into the Denver ad market. Where the cash could make the biggest difference, however, is on the state level. “Dropping $15 million into the presidential race won’t be determinative,” says Rick Hasen, an expert on campaign finance at the University of California, Irvine. “Dropping $15 million into a Senate race will be a bombshell.”

Under the media radar, vulnerable Senate candidates have spent the last few months getting pummeled by outside attacks. Crossroads GPS and similar groups have spent more than $6.5 million slamming Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill for supporting Obamacare; she currently trails all three of her potential Republican challengers in the polls. In Nebraska, Bob Kerrey has taken roughly $2 million in incoming fire, including an Americans for Prosperity ad set to Psycho-style music. In Florida, billionaire Sheldon Adelson has given $1 million to a pro–Connie Mack super PAC, and Rove’s American Crossroads has reserved $6.2 million in fall airtime.

But it does more than that. Even if that money doesn’t shift the election this time, it gives those corporate interests enormous leverage after the election. If Sherrod Brown and Claire McCaskill both manage to win tough elections and return to office, that’s hardly the end of it. When a bill comes up that has a real effect on the bottom line of an industry, the lobbyists from that industry can then walk into their offices and tell them that if they don’t vote their way, or make sure some unknown provision is buried or weakened, they’re going to spend twice as much next time to make sure they’re defeated. That’s how politics now works.

"I think that I have conducted myself rather well. I hope you're not upset by ..."

We All Lose When Trump Picks ..."
""I identify with Trump because he isn't a black man"."

Everything Wrong with America on Display ..."
"If anything, I'm not running hot enough. We're talking about the potential deaths of millions ..."

We All Lose When Trump Picks ..."
"You mean she isn't content with just producing dumber students?"

DeVos Destroying Civil Rights Policing by ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • d cwilson

    It’s only a matter of time before members of Congress will cease represent districts or states and instead be appointed to represent particular corporations.

    We’ll have the Congressman from ExxonMobile debating government subsidies with the Senator from Monsanto.

  • oranje

    Mr. Smith wouldn’t even get elected to Washington anymore, let alone stand up to the nonsense.

  • John Hinkle

    I can see this just making everything more polarized over time. As the rich implement their ultimately destructive policies, they’re going to need someone to blame when things go south. I wonder who that’s going to be?

  • d cwilson “We’ll have the Congressman from ExxonMobile debating government subsidies with the Senator from Monsanto.”

    You did before. The Committee’s “sponsors” name the Committee (eg: the House Banking Committee is from the FIRE industry, the House Armed Services Committee is from the defense sector, etc).

    John Hinkle “I can see this just making everything more polarized over time.”

    The only good thing I see coming out of this will be once they’ve eaten our lunch and start going after each other’s, which will at least be fun to watch.

  • jnorris

    d cwilson @ #1

    The politicians should be required to wear their owners’ logos on their clothing like NASCAR drivers.

  • “Representative” democracy is a farce.

  • matthewhodson

    Its just disgusting; blah enough internets I’m going outside while there are still birds and sunshine and trees to enjoy.

  • Not to downplay the pernicious effect of all this unaccountable money, but Sherrod Brown is going to win in a walk. He is up roughly between 5 and 12 points on his challenger. Maybe his margin should be even bigger, but the forces of evil are spending a shit ton of money on a futile race.

  • We’ll have the Congressman from ExxonMobile debating government subsidies with the Senator from Monsanto.

    I believe their names are Joe Barton and Roy Blunt.

  • dan4

    @8 “He is roughly between 5 and 12 points on his challenger.”

    Citation(s) needed.

  • Also, the claim that Brown’s lead has been “cut in half” is a little suspect. Here is the RCP poll of polls going back to March of 2011:


    Unfortunately, these kinds of races don’t get polled very well until close to election time, but there hasn’t been any real change. The Rasmussen polls have consistently shown worse results for Brown than the others, but you expect that with Rasmussen. But even within the Rasmussen polls, except for one outlier 5 months ago, Brown’s lead has held steady at roughly 4 points, and in the other polls, it’s held steady at roughly 10-15 points. If anything, Brown had a slightly weak patch in the Spring and has since regressed back to the strong lead he had going from before. There is no sign at all that he has lost ground.

    In related news, Romney is getting his balls kicked in Ohio, and without that state, he simply cannot win.

  • “Citation(s) needed.”

    Granted. See above.

  • Reginald Selkirk

    We can say with sufficient certainty that the massive spending by super PACs on campaign ads is not an effective way to stimulate the economy.