What the Data Say

In Citizens United v. the Federal Elections Commission, the Supremes ruled 5-4 that corporations and rich individuals could spend unlimited amounts of money to influence American elections. (Below is a video explaining the background and significance of the Citizens United decision. It's nine minutes well spent.) Cynics predicted that we would be flooded with campaign contributions from the richest 1%, attempting to purchase even more influence than they already had. We now have some data from the Center for Responsive Politics with which to evaluate that prediction.

To be specific, in Citizens United the Supremes allowed individuals, corporations and labor unions to donate unlimited sums of money to super PACs (political action committees), and to do so anonymously. If Citizens United had any effect on campaign spending, it should be most apparent in the category called “outside spending”—spending by groups other than candidates and parties, most of which is spent on campaign ads.

Here is a tally of outside spending as of March 8, so that previous years can be compared to this one. (Clicking on the chart will bring it into sharper focus.) The table and the graph are two different presentations of the same information. Here's how to read these charts. First of all, you have to separate the presidential election years (1992, 1996, etc.) from the non-presidential years, since a lot more money is spent on the presidential election than any other campaigns. In both presidential and non-presidential years, spending has increased over time. Why? There are many possible explanations. It's obviously more than just inflation. My guess is that it has become more apparent to wealthy Americans that campaign spending is a good investment that is paid back many times over after the election.

The Citizens United decision was announced on January 21, 2010, so it could have affected expenditures in the 2010 and 2012 election cycles. Looking just at the presidential election years, it is obvious than more money has been spent this year than any previous year. But the trend is toward increased spending. Is 2012 merely an extension of that trend, or was there a discontinuity that took place between 2008 and 2012 that makes 2012 different from all preceding years?

We can't answer that question until after the campaign when all the data are in. However, we can say this. If you draw a line connecting the data points for total outside spending during presidential election years, they don't form a straight line but rather an accelerating curve. The increase from 2000 to 2004 was about $11.5 million. From 2004 to 2008, spending increased by $23 million—just about double the previous increase. If it were to double again in 2012, we would predict 2012 expenditures of about $84 million. But we have reached $88 million. That isn't a big difference, but it's more than we would have expected based on the trend line.

It's possible that outside spending will tail off between March and November and 2012, and total spending will fit the prevailing trend line. However, news reports about the amounts being raised suggest that this is unlikely. Remember, only the Elephants have had competitive primaries. If spending after March 8 is consistent with what has happened to date, Citizens United will have made a difference. (There is a news article about campaign spending almost every day. Today's New York Times suggests that up to now the Elephants have a huge advantage in super PAC money, and the Jackasses are scrambling to catch up.)

Fortunately, the chart contains a built-in replication—the non-presidential years. Again the question is whether 2010 is different from the previous off-year elections. Prior to 2006, expenditures were about $1 million—some slightly more, some less. In 2006, it almost doubled to slightly less than $2 million. If it had doubled again in 2010, that would be $4 million. But actual 2010 expenditures were almost $16 million. This is only through March, but if you look at the entire campaign, you reach the same conclusion. Total outside spending went from about $69 million in 2006 to about $305 million in 2010. This is more than we would have predicted based on the trend, so it seems that there was an increase in off-year election outside spending.

A time series design such as this one does not permit a strong inference that Citizens United was the cause of the spending increase. It could be any event that occurred between November 2008 and early 2010. (A critic might argue that it was the "radical socialism" of the Obama presidency.) However, Hasen makes two other points about the comparison between the 2006 and 2010 off-year elections that are consistent with a Citizens United interpretation. Spending by anonymous donors increased from 1% to 47% of the total. And 72% of outside spending in 2010 came from sources that were prohibited from donating in 2006. So we not only have an increase in spending, but we also known where it came from.

To conclude this post, here's a quote from the lead singer in the Citizens United case, Justice Anthony Kennedy:

(T)his Court now concludes that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption. That speakers may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that those officials are corrupt. And the appearance of influence or access will not cause the electorate to lose faith in this democracy.

I'll take up the various meanings of “corruption” in a future post. But for now, suffice it to say that Anthony Kennedy has to be one of the more naïve human beings ever to walk the face of the earth. Does anyone seriously believe that the 1% would be spending this much money if they weren't confident that it was a good investment?