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?

Legislative Fraud

When you vote on November 6, there may be an Elephant in the room.

The Pennsylvania Senate yesterday passed a voter ID law that will require voters to show photo identification when the go to the polls in November. It passed 26-23, with three Elephants breaking ranks with their party to vote against it. It is expected to pass in the Elephant-controlled House, and Governor Tom Corbett has said that he supports it. The ACLU of Pennsylvania has stated that the law is unconstitutional since it discriminates against the poor and the elderly. They have promised to challenge the law to prevent it from being implemented.

Here's a case where thinking slowly might help. If the Elephants are sincere, it's hard to find a clearer example of irrationality in the political process. Those who claim that voter fraud is real are usually referring to other types of irregularities that either don't involve actual voters, such as voting machine tampering, or don't involve actual fraud. The Brennan Center for Justice has thoroughly investigated cases of alleged fraud at the polls. Those that are not false rumors usually involve mistaken identity, clerical error, or unintentional violations by people who do not realize they are ineligible to vote. In a brief filed in an 2007 Indiana case, they state, “(N)ot one of the citations offered by Indiana or its allies refers to a proven example of a single vote cast at the polls in someone else's name that could be stopped by a pollsite photo ID rule.”

A bit of slow thought reveals why it is rare for unauthorized people to attempt to vote. It's a ridiculous way to try to affect an election. The perpetrator risks a $10,000 fine and up to five years in prison in order to cast a single extra vote. If ineligible persons had ever attempted to vote in numbers large enough to influence the outcome, it would surely have been detected.

Of course, it's disingenuous to pretend that the Elephants are unaware that voter ID bills are "a solution in search of a problem." Their real purpose is voter suppression. Voter ID laws have been enacted or are are pending in at least 26 states. As many as 5 million legitimate voters could be deterred from voting by these laws. And they discriminate against the elderly, the poor, minorities and young people—groups that typically vote for Jackasses. Nationwide, about 18% of seniors and 25% of African-Americans don't have photo ID. The partisan nature of this "debate" is revealed by the fact that recent votes in state legislatures have been almost completely along party lines.

The latest defense of the indefensible by proponents of the bill is the claim that it will alleviate fears of voter fraud.  But the only reason there are fears of voter fraud is their own disinformation campaign.

In one respect, Pennsylvania's voter ID law is less objectionable than those of most other states. It permits college students to use university ID cards as a valid photo ID for voting purposes. College students are likely to favor Obama by a large majority. How could the Elephants have let this happen?