Coloradans, who were in a passing mood this year, passed Amendment 65, which calls on Colorados congressional delegation to support campaign finance limits. The impetus was clear: rich people (including, since the 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission Supreme Court ruling, corporations) should not be able to buy elections by making them unaffordable for everyone else.
And yet, this years big campaign money didnt make the difference its donors were counting on it to make.
Donald Trumps famously Tweeted, Congrats to @KarlRove on blowing $400 million this cycle. Every race @CrossroadsGPS ran ads in, the Republicans lost. What a waste of money.
Rove can argue with Trump about the absolute accuracy of that message, but the gist of it is true: Money given to Rove to invest in this election did not produce a good return, and Rove wasnt the only power broker left holding an empty money bag.
The election did produce some winners, including Progressive Insurance owner Peter Lewis, who reportedly contributed $800,000 to the effort to decriminalize recreational marijuana use in Colorado. Lewis is from Ohio.
Money poured into Colorados state House District 59, one of the races deemed essential to control of the General Assembly. (Montezuma County voters, now redistricted into the 58th, were amused to see anti-J.Paul Brown ads popping up on many of the websites they viewed a sign, perhaps, that some advertising dollars could be more accurately targeted, even though Brown did lose in the end.) In most elections, the winning side had been the beneficiary of significant spending, some of it from people who didnt care about an individual race except as it contributed to a majority.
But the big spending didnt pay off predictably. The Los Angeles Times cites one California proposition on which backers auto insurers spent $17.1 million, only to lose to opponents who collected only $275,000.
Those results dont prove that political spending doesnt work. Sometimes it does, very well. There were many forces in play in this election, including divisive primary battles, last-minute surprises, unwillingness to believe the polls, and momentum that everyone seemed reluctant to believe. Voters who have already made up their minds are likely to toss campaign mailers directly into the wastebasket and mute offensive commercials. And sometimes, especially in smaller populations, precinct walks and personal reputations can outweigh any amount of advertising.
Rove, ever the cynic, managed to convince a lot of big-money donors that wasnt true, that negative advertising (because at his level, thats all there was) could sway voters despite their personal experiences, their ideology, their ability and apparent willingness to research issues and come to their own conclusions. That his expensive attempts at manipulation, and those of others on both sides of the partisan divide didnt always work suggest that Americans are developing a healthy resistance to the tone and content of Super PAC advertising.
That would be a very good move toward more civil and honest elections.
Citizens United still needs to be remedied although Amendment 65, which is wholly symbolic, isnt the solution because big donors tend to have a lot at stake in elections, in ways not congruent with the interests of human citizens. But if voters stopped responding to negative campaigning if a party held a character assassination and no one showed up campaign contributions might come to be spent in ways intended to inform citizens rather than tricking them and scaring them into voting against their own interests.
That sounds like progress.
