In 2010, as a matter of free speech, the United States Supreme Court decided that there can be no limits on corporate spending on advertisements in favor of a political candidate (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission). Open Secrets produced two figures revealing the rise in “outside spending” (i.e., non-party spending) showing the rise.
Total outside spending:
Outside spending for liberals and conservatives:
Open Secrets explains:
…the 2004 election marked a watershed moment in the use of independent expenditures to try to sway voters, with most of that new spending coming from the national party committees. The 2010 election marks the rise of a new political committee, dubbed “super PACs,” and officially known as “independent-expenditure only committees,” which can raise unlimited sums from corporations, unions and other groups, as well as wealthy individuals.
Hermes’ Journeys editorializes:
You can see that liberals slightly outspent conservatives every election since 1996. Except for this year, when quite suddenly a mysterious flood of funding caused conservative campaign coffers to skyrocket, DOUBLING what liberals could muster. Was this the result of concerned right-leaning citizens becoming active in politics and making individual donations? Of course not, it was profit-minded corporations…
…enabled, if I may finished HJ’s sentence, by the recent court decision.
Lisa Wade, PhD is an Associate Professor at Tulane University. She is the author of American Hookup, a book about college sexual culture; a textbook about gender; and a forthcoming introductory text: Terrible Magnificent Sociology. You can follow her on Twitter and Instagram.
Comments 7
Scott — November 21, 2010
So just so we're clear, Citizens United only touched electioneering communications and applied to "corporations" in general, meaning "for-profit" and "not-for-profit" corporations (so Walmart, but also MoveOn, American Family Association, and UAW).
So saying that it's "profit-minded" corporations solely is attractive and not too far off base, but it's a lot deeper than that...
Nonprofits often apply to the famous 501(c) tax breaks, so not only can people in general put more money into campaigns more often, but they make money talk louder by removing the tax burden.
scooter — November 21, 2010
Yeh, but it isnt for those 501c3's...which are public in nature...as i understand it ...just to be clear, its for other versions(private) of 501's. Another thing is why many of the churches which have actual established political issue ballot classes continue to violate their tax charters doing this kind of thing unchallenged...?
kunoichi — November 21, 2010
"You can see that liberals slightly outspent conservatives every election since 1996. "
Slightly? It's harder to tell in '96 and '98, as all the pre-2000 numbers are so low in comparison, but '96 looks almost double. 2000 looks to be about 25% more, while 2002 looks almost 3 times more. Both sides made a huge jump in 2004, but for both '04 and '06, it again looks like the libs spent almost double what the cons spent.
That's the writer's idea of "slightly"?
I'm curious about both why the cons expenditures jumped so much in 2010 and why the libs expenditures dropped so significantly.
Dan Cobb — November 21, 2010
I don't care really who spent more, Progressives or Conservatives. The deepest problem here is that the Citizens United decision robs "We, the People" of our rights as citizens, demolishing political equality for all of us and gives those rights to corporations, nameless, unidentified entities who can spend many millions to dominate the media and even blackmail politicians with treacherous smear campaigns. This is worst, most vile and extreme judicial activism the country has seen in over a century. Aside from impeachment (which should be undertaken) aside from a Constitutional Amemdment defeating this decision (which should be undertaken), in the near term we must demand that Congress pass the DISCLOSE ACT. A robust DISCLOSE ACT would at least reveal, in the near term, who these corporate thugs are. Outting these groups would dry up their river of fraudulent cash. Help us preserve our rights and our democracy. Join us. Click the name.
Pioneering Democracy in a Corporatist State « O, Pioneers! — March 4, 2011
[...] also explains, many of the public officials who were elected in the last election cycle (read: Republicans) likely would never have been elected without the flood of corporate spending made possible by [...]