Supreme Court Tells Big Business To Spend Itself To Death

The Supreme Court’s decision on the 21st will allow corporations to give more money to support or oppose political candidates. Legal experts say that the move reverses a decision made by the court almost 20 years ago.

The flow of money to influence elections could easily move into the tens of billions of dollars per year. American energy companies and groups they support spent $300 million in the third quarter of last year to lobby Congress about new environmental laws, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. A presidential race would certainly merit a larger investment,say ten billion, by not just one industry, but by many who would hope to influence the outcome. The cost to influence the fortunes of a candidate for the House of Representatives seat is probably only seven figures at the growing rate of campaign spending for these offices.

Corporate America may spend itself to death now and find that the billions of dollars get a much lower yield than they might expect. Public gestures which involve the writing of large checks based on dubious motives can backfire.
Billionaire Michael Bloomberg spent over $100 million to win his third term in office as mayor of New York City. He got only 51% of the vote for that investment. His opponent spent less than $6 million. If the new Supreme Court ruling had been in effect when Bloomberg was running,  companies or unions could have put another $100 million or more into support of Bloomberg’s election. He still may have done no better than 51% of the vote. Too many people were unhappy about a change in term limits that allowed him to be mayor of New York for a third time.

Multimillionaire Mitt Romney spent a substantial part of his $250 million net worth in an attempt to best John McCain to become the Republican candidate for president in 2008. All of that money could not overcome the fact that most people do not know what a Mormon is. Romney’s supporters, under the new law, could have spent $250 million or more of their own money to help his candidacy. It probably would not have made a difference. Romney had an image problem that a huge bank account could not solve

There are even rumors which will probably never be proven, that the supporters of Stephen A. Douglas outspent Abraham Lincoln’s by a margin of three-to-one in the 1860 presidential campaign.

Money that comes from powerful sources, can be as much as detriment as it is an advantage. There are still people in America who do not like to feel that their vote is being “bought.” Some may not want to help a candidate who is supported by money from the corporation that owns the Exxon Valdez or a company that produces arms or tobacco products.

Credible candidates from either party who can substantially outspend their opponents or get others to outspend on their behalf are likely to have an important edge in most elections. But,money cannot buy charisma, It often does makes up for the lack of this gift by building an overwhelming commercial presence in the media for a candidate. The cost to hire a top-tier telemarketing firm that makes 500,000 phone calls is an asset which almost certainly increases the odds of winning a race for national political office.

Shrewd but financially poor candidates will use the new opportunity for corporations to support their opponents by casting themselves as underdogs. The ability of a candidate to promote himself as an “everyman” who has no money from lobbyists or influential friends but has character, intelligence and is a beneficiary of the American meritocracy is priceless.

Douglas A. McIntyre