You Are! Am Not!

One of the many, many unintended consequences of Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission is not just the volume of hard cash that has escalated the cost of getting elected into the stratosphere or even the fact that these mega-rich messengers are now telling the candidates what they stand for (it’s not “leadership” we elect folks for these days, it’s “followership”!), it is what kind of campaign rhetoric they are actually funding. “Four years ago, just 6 percent of campaign advertising in the GOP primaries amounted to attacks on other Republicans; in this election, that figure has shot up to more than 50 percent, according to an analysis of advertising trends.” Washington Post, February 20^th.

Perhaps there is a degree of “plausible deniability” when a Super-PAC mounts the attack (as opposed to the candidate him or herself); after all, the candidates themselves are forbidden from directly controlling these floating political Taj Mahal behemoths. “Data show that super PACs, which have run more advertising than the campaigns themselves, have spent 72 percent of their money on negative ads. The figure for campaigns is 27 percent, according to a Washington Post analysis of data from Kantar Media/Campaign Media Analysis Group, which tracks television advertising across the country. (…ads were considered negative if they mentioned another GOP candidate.). The Post.

But if there is one clear “queen of mean” in this campaign, it clearly has to be Mitt Romney and his retinue of sympathetic PAC followers. All you have to do to generate a massive increase in Super Pac contributions for Mr. Romney is beat him in any serious caucus or primary, and watch that money laser in on the winner’s many and obvious imperfections. “Romney’s campaign began running an ad [February 17^th] in Michigan showing a limp body sinking in murky water while a narrator intones: ‘America is drowning in national debt, yet Rick Santorum supported billions in earmarks.’… All of this invective is flowing in an election season when Republicans had hoped to train their resources on beating President Obama. Candidates typically save their sharpest attacks for the general-election campaign, largely sparing their fellow party members.” The Post.

When Gingrich was the Romney Super-PAC victim following Newt’s primary victories, Romney’s Super-PAC went into high gear, and Newt’s Super-PAC – which had begun the race with more positive messages – fired back. “Once the tone of the race turned negative, it stayed that way. One Ron Paul campaign ad calls Newt Gingrich a ‘serial hypocrite.’ Another spot, from a group backing Romney, asks, ‘Haven’t we had enough mistakes’ from Gingrich?... A group supporting Gingrich accuses Romney of being a ‘corporate raider’ and shows footage of an elderly woman saying, ‘I feel that is the man who destroyed us.’ Another spot from the group accuses Romney of making “blood money” from a company that was found guilty of bilking the government for Medicare payments.

“Romney and the groups backing him have led the trend, spending two-thirds of their money on negative ads. Gingrich and the Winning Our Future PAC backing him have spent half of their funds on spots attacking other Republicans. Santorum and the PACs behind him have devoted one out of four dollars to attack ads… Winning Our Future spokesman Rick Tyler said his group’s message was positive until it was forced to counter Romney’s ‘scorched earth’ strategy.” The Post.

Surely there's voter backlash against all this negativity, enough to deter this madness from escalating. Not exactly. “Las Vegas casino mogul Sheldon Adelson said he would give up to $100 million to Newt Gingrich or another GOP candidate, according to a rare interview in Forbes magazine published [February 21st]. 'It’s unfair that I’ve been treated unfair — but it doesn’t stop me. I might give $10 million or $100 million to Gingrich,' he said.” LBNelert, February 21^st.

Try this: “[At a Republican invitation-only retreat in California at the end of January,] conservative billionaires Charles and David Koch and about 250 to 300 other individuals pledged approximately $100 million to defeat President Obama in the 2012 elections... A source who was in the room when the pledges were made told The Huffington Post that, specifically, Charles Koch pledged $40 million and David pledged $20 million.” Oh goody; our political process is now subverted in to more of a cash-and-carry trade than it has ever been, and I suspect as the November elections rolls around, there will be a groundswell of Democratic Super-PACS with their most negative messages. Huffington Post, February 3^rd. I’m trying to think of one good thing that the Citizens United decision has added to our great nation. I’m sorry, I can’t.

I’m Peter Dekom, and the “one true thing” about the way we are running our elections these days is that you get what you pay for… and not much else.