A Democracy For the Millionaires — 2012 election spending shatters records Printer-Friendly E-Mail This Dec 16, 2012 By Patrick Ayers This article, initially written in the final days of the election season, appeared in a shortened form in Justice newspaper. This is a longer version with tremendously useful statistics and analysis. It comes as no surprise to many people: spending on the 2012 election broke all records. But, the estimated $6 billion in spending does not simply break the record, it shatters it. “The 2012 election will not only be the most expensive election in U.S. history,” reported the Center for Responsive Politics (CPR), “the cost will tower over the next most expensive election by more than $700 million.” Spending by “super PACs” and outside groups accounts for the largest increase, estimated by CPR to be $970 million in 2012 or more than triple what outside groups spent in 2008. These latest CPR figures are revisions of previous lower estimates. But, the final tally could be even larger. According to the Sunlight Foundationa,/a>, as many as 67 brand new Super PACs sprang up across the country just in the last month of the election with millions to spend. Weekly spending has surged from just over $26 million in early September, to more than $210 million in the last full week of the campaign. Citizens United The trends are very clear. The 1% is going bananas with money and elections. Spending on congressional elections alone increased tenfold between 2008 and 2012, from $46 million to $445 million. Certainly, the Citizens United ruling by the Supreme Court in January 2010 is one reason for this marked shift. This decision removed one-hundred years of restrictions on campaign spending. While restrictions remain on direct donations to candidates, corporations and the rich are free to unload as much as they want on their own independent election material. Mouthpieces of the 1% argue everyone has this same so-called “right”. But, how many of the 49.1 million Americans living in poverty or the additional 97.3 million Americans with low incomes have $10,000, $100,000, or $1 million laying around for an election? Super PACs In July 2010 another Supreme Court decision gave birth to “super PACs,” essentially massive political funds that can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money on their own material in elections. Since then, there has been a rapid growth in PACs driven by corporations and the rich. According to Public Research Interest Group, more than 60% of “super PAC” funding has come from 91 people making donations of $1 million or more, while 97% has come from donations of $10,000 or more from less than 2,000 donors. Just 629 people donated nearly as much money to super PACs as 1.9 million people did to both the Obama and Romney campaigns combined with donations of $200 or less. “Super PACs” have heavily favored Republicans over the Democrats. But, in recent months the Democrats have embraced “super PACs” and have been < a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/21/democratic-super-pacs-2012-election_n_1995174.html">playing catch-up. The third largest PAC is now Priorities USA Action, a pro-Obama fund that has received huge donations of more than $1 million from Hollywood celebrities, corporate executives, and the billionaire hedge fund manager James Simmons – the largest donor to the notorious Republican “super PAC” American Crossroads (Of course, the big donors often like to hedge their bets and donate to both campaigns). There has also been a rapid rise in what's being called “dark money” groups. These are massive campaign funds like “super PACs,” buy they fall under a separate legal category as “social welfare” organizations. One important difference is they do not have to disclose their donors. This is a huge incentive for their millionaire and billionaire backers who prefer to do their dirty work out of the public eye (taxes, business deals, you name it!). The former Bush guru and Republican evil genius Karl Rove runs one of the largest “dark money” groups Crossroads GPS. Of course, corporate money continued to find its way into politics through more traditional channels like bundling and the big money private fundraisers that were important features of both presidential campaigns. By March of the 2012 campaign, Obama had already broken the record for the number of fundraisers attended by a sitting President. When all this gorging on the presidential election is added up, the campaigns are likely to spend more than $1 billion each. Democracy for the millionaires While Citizens United clearly contributed to this marked upturn in spending, it does not fully account for the rising cost of elections, which has rapidly risen over the past forty years. Between 1974 and 2002, the average amount of money raised by candidates for the House rose from $61,084 to $756,993. In the same period, the average raised by candidates for Senate grew from $455,515 to $4,460,206. (Kim Moody, US Labor in Trouble and Transition, New York, Verso, p.152) This points to deeper processes driving the recent developments in the 2012 election. Mark Smith of the University of Washington argues, "If you look over a 30-year period, the biggest thing that I think is driving [the increasing cost of elections] is just inequality. There's more money at the top, and so there's more money that can slosh around." But, the massive growth in inequality itself is being driven by a historic crisis of capitalism. The system cannot deliver both for the 99% and the 1% – particularly since the 1970s – so millionaires have increasingly used their vast financial resources to ram through policies that favor their interests over ours. Build a movement of the millions Many progressives are calling for repealing Citizens United. This should be fought for, but it won't be nearly enough to turn the tide in our favor. For example, both the Democrats and Republicans would still be parties controlled and dominated by millionaires. Writing in the NY Times Sunday Review, Nicholas Carnes pointed out, “If millionaires were a political party, that party would make up roughly 3 percent of American families, but it would have a super-majority in the Senate, a majority in the House, a majority on the Supreme Court and a man in the White House. “Even if we somehow stem the tide of money in Washington” continued Carnes, “even if we guarantee equal participation on Election Day, millionaires will still get to set the tax rate for millionaires.” (10/15/2012) Campaigning to reform elections or the two parties by “getting money out of politics” will not be enough to challenge this “millionaires democracy.” More effective would be breaking with the two corporate-controlled parties, building mass movements independent of them, running hundreds of independent candidates, and building a new party of the millions, not the millionaires. Working people, people of color, women, and everyone in the 99% have never won meaningful change by outspending corporations or by electing millionaire politicians. But, when we organize in our millions and consciously fight for our interests, we are unstoppable.

Socialist Alternative, P.O. Box 45343, Seattle WA 98145 Phone: (206)526-7185 Comments? Suggestions for improving our web page? Please email info@SocialistAlternative.org