There has been much outrage expressed - by unlikely allies Newt Gingrich and Chris Matthews - about the baneful influence of political commercials financed by big money groups not specifically affiliated with any candidate. Gingrich, who came in 4th in Iowa, and Matthews of MSNBC, specifically singled out the four million dollars worth of campaign ads put on the Iowa air by a pro-Romney group against Gingrich.
And Gingrich did lose. And Romney did win-
But by a total of eight votes. And Rick Santorum, who came in such a close second, had virtually no money spent on his behalf on ads. He came in so close to first the good old-fashioned way - by pressing the flesh, in-person, across Iowa.
I agree with literally none of Santorum's views that I know of. But I appreciate the unavoidable conclusion of his almost-victory: spending on TV commercials counts for nothing. One candidate spent a fortune, the other spent next to nothing, and they both came in tied in the lead.
I've been arguing, for years, that the Jeffersonian view that people are inherently rational, can separate truth from falsity, means we shouldn't get so upset about campaign financing, and in fact the government, as per the First Amendment, should stay totally out of this. Last night the Republican caucuses in Iowa made this point with clean, mathematical eloquence.
And Gingrich did lose. And Romney did win-
But by a total of eight votes. And Rick Santorum, who came in such a close second, had virtually no money spent on his behalf on ads. He came in so close to first the good old-fashioned way - by pressing the flesh, in-person, across Iowa.
I agree with literally none of Santorum's views that I know of. But I appreciate the unavoidable conclusion of his almost-victory: spending on TV commercials counts for nothing. One candidate spent a fortune, the other spent next to nothing, and they both came in tied in the lead.
I've been arguing, for years, that the Jeffersonian view that people are inherently rational, can separate truth from falsity, means we shouldn't get so upset about campaign financing, and in fact the government, as per the First Amendment, should stay totally out of this. Last night the Republican caucuses in Iowa made this point with clean, mathematical eloquence.
12 comments:
It has worked out in this case where Republicans are split, but what about the next time, when a REAL Candidate has all the ideas, and another candidate has all the money and all the financial interests behind him.
What then of Citizens United?
If one candidate has all the ideas, and the other all the money, my point would be that electorate would vote with the ideas that they most agree with.
As for Citizens United, the notion that a corporation is a person is flawed, but I agree with gist of the decision, which gets the government out of regulating communication.
It should be noted that the only reason Newt had any standing at all is because he did well in the debates, all of which were funded by people other than himself. One of the reasons he lost as much ground as he did was because there hadn't been any more debates for several weeks.
I agree with you, Paul. Despite all he spent, Romney still finished at 25%, which is where he has been stuck since the beginning.
for what it is worth, Santorum spent $1.60 per vote, Romney spent $120 per vote.
Thanks - that's a very useful statistic.
I'm not a fan of ether Santorum or Romney, but for what it's worth Santorum had a hugh media blitz starting at the first of the year.
He still spent a tiny fraction of what Romney spent, as the previous commentator correctly noted.
Paul, I worry about the SuperPacs-- the money is anonymous, so how will we ever know if the money for the attack ads is really coming from the Chinese government, or the Saudis or whoever? bottomline:
don't these anonymous SuperPacs put the Presidency up for sale on the global market?
Paul, add this to the "for what it's worth" dept: all the MONEY AND TIME that Romney spent the last 4 years in Iowa netted him a paltry 10+ votes between 2008 and 2012 ... and maintaining him at his 25% ceiling of Republican primary voters ... or put another way -- 75% of Repubs do not "approve this message."
btw, happy new year and keep up the good work on this blog,,,
Much thanks for both comments, James (and the Romney data is very helpful).
On the foreign money - I believe that the Supreme Court decision doesn't allow that, but of course money can be channeled from overseas through American corporations.
But my larger point still holds: I truly believe most people are rational enough to decide on their own standards what they want in a candidate, regardless of how many commercials he or she has on the air. And this, indeed, is the basis of democracy itself - that people have an inherent rationality, which makes their choices better than even the most intelligent philosopher-king's.
Paul -- i hear your faith in people doing the right thing ("that people have an inherent rationality, which makes their choices better than even the most intelligent philosopher-king's."). you're a good person.
as I always joked with my Republican friends who voted for Bush in 2000: ok I give you a mulligan on that one -- you didn't know any better. but explain to me why you voted for him in 2004? with that very public and sorry-ass Bush track record and you voted to keep the loser-king. so much for the "inherent rationality" of the voting public.
Thanks again, James.
Two points -
1. Rationality isn't infallible - people make mistakes and misjudgments. What counts - again, as per Jefferson - is that in the long run people can be counted in to do better than philosopher kings.
2. Much as I didn't like G. W. Bush, the economy was doing fine when he was re-elected in 2004, and the extent of our blunder in Iraq wasn't yet completely clear. So, there were rational arguments in his favor.
Post a Comment