The Vanishing Voting Booth Citizens United The Wholesale Purchase of The Presidential Elections

The Vanishing Voting Booth: Citizens United, The Wholesale Purchase of the Presidential
Elections?
Elections?
Anthony Devoll Turner
April 27, 2015
POL301-PUB301.M1: Res Sem in Politics & Policy
(Winter 2015)
1
Anthony Turner
Elections?
The Vanishing Voting Booth: Citizens United, The Wholesale Purchase of the Presidential Elections?
Table of Contents
Introduction
Page 3
Historical Background of Money and Elections
Page 5
The Historical Economics of Elections
Page 7
The Human Equation of the Vanishing Voting Booth and (Social Capitol)
Page 9
The Electoral Process Equation
Page 12
Introducing Citizens United
Page 15
Why this Research is Important
Page 19
Explaining the Vanishing Voting Booth The human capacity
Page 20
Voting and the Presidential Elections Before and After Citizens United
Page 21
The Bush Campaign
Page 23
The Obama Campaign
Page 26
Voting Trends 1996 thru 2012(Including race and age)
Page 30
Citizens Voting Mobility
Page 33
Economy and the Elections
Page 34
Short Voter Attention Span
Page 36
Causes of the Vanishing Voting Booth
Page 38
Invisible Primary
Page 39
The Primary, States holding earlier and earlier primaries
Page 41
Campaign Financing, Citizens United Example of Campaign Finance Reform?
Page 43
Super Pacs
Page 47
Dark Money/Secret Money
Page 49
Media
Page 49
Conclusion
Page 51
Bibliography
Page 53
2
Anthony Turner
Elections?
Introduction
At the very beginning, our democracy was founded and rooted in a basic tenant. This
tenant is based on consent, a component that President Abraham Lincoln noted in his Gettysburg
Address. President Lincoln said, ...a government of, by, and for the people... Citizens United
versus FEC has changed this commitment to governmental integrity and it has changed the
nature of our elections, especially the Presidential elections. As Stephen Wayne states,
government is a conversion mechanism, it exists for all of the people, not just for those in
positions of authority but especially for those who do not hold such positions. It enables the
public to control its own destiny (Wayne, 2004) However, beginning with the case of First
National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti and then Citizens United; loopholes were legislated and still
exist today that enables the rich, elite and powerful to influence and now purchase votes (First
National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 1978). This is counter-productive to the tenants that were
infused into the very fabric of our great nation which prescribes that our government is for and
by the people. Contrary to the wisdom and wishes of our Countrys Founders; greed, capitalism,
and profit have infiltrated the political process in a profound and new manner, affecting the
outcome at the voting booth.
According to Wilcox, political scientist, sociologists, and economists have been studying
money in American elections since the early twentieth century and even now, yet there is no
consensus for or against the answer to the question of does and how much does money affect a
campaign (Wilcox, 2010). The Democrats would have us believe that money is not the issue but
when the Citizens United case was won, the Democratic response was overblown and they
accused the conservative Justices of paving the way for elections to be purchased. Their
argument is hypocritical because if money did not matter then raising the point to accuse the
GOP of buying the elections would be pointless. So this research will answer the following
3
Anthony Turner
Elections?
points that money does matter and has become the great decider, influencing decisions at the
voting booth. The core essential questions that drive this premise according to John Sides is:
Both the Democrats and the Republicans raise records amounts of cash. Democrats want
the electorate to believe that these are Republican vote purchases but the Democrats also
raise extraordinary amounts of campaign cash and most times out-raise Republicans.
Until candidates change their behaviors, as long as they act as if money matters, it will
matter.
As long as candidates believe money matters and raise it in ever-greater sums, big donors
will have ever-greater influence and leverage.
If what the pundits says is true, that money doesnt determine winners; it still determines
who can run in the first place.
(Since Citizens United was adjudicated) it has introduced a new element of importance
on the matters of money. These newly reformed elements are Super PACSs and political
501c3 organizations. Now that money is the issue, more money will pour into these
organizations and they will get savvier in exploiting the legal loopholes.
Now that Super PACs are here to stay, Dark Money is now the elephant in the room.
In Money Matters, Sides further explains the following, The most straightforward (and
hence most easily testable) view is that it matters if there is a statistically significant correlation
between the amount of money spent and the likelihood of victory, controlling for all other
independent relevant factors. That is, that money is predictive of outcomes. The candidate who
spends more is more likely to win (Feingold J. M., 2012). So, despite what Wayne says, ...The
marginal effect of more money is tiny... John Sides and even Jacobson when he refers to
Congressional elections states, the more they (incumbent) spend, the more likely they are to
4
Anthony Turner
Elections?
win (Jaobsen, 2013). If this is true, these opinions can be viewed as leading indicators that
Citizens United will forever change the political landscape.
This research will focus on Presidential campaign data from 1994 through 2012 and how
Citizens United has effectively diminished the worth of the voting booth and switched the power
of the vote from the living, breathing electorate to the electorate that only speaks with its money.
Historical Background of Money and Elections

Benjamin Harrison, the 23rd President of the United States of America, like most
Presidents today; believed that his rise to the Presidency was both appointed and by providence.
However, this is not the case. Mark Hanna, a successful businessman and political expert during
the 1860s that is still referenced to this day by the GOP, had a different view. Over One
Hundred years ago Hanna like many others understood the dynamics of getting elected to the
White House and also knew that in order to run a successful campaign, plenty of cash is needed.
He understood that money was more of a factor than a scientific theory or a mathematical
equation based on probabilities and statistics. Mr. Hanna understood that in politics, winning the
hearts and minds of the electorate was an issue of giving the people what they wanted to hear and
having the means, which is money, to get it to the people. Clearly, his main point to President
Harrison was that without money; nothing else mattered. (The United States of America, 1999)
Then there was President Teddy Roosevelt who complained about how corporations were
buying elections and corrupting the election process. This led to the Tillman Act of 1907. The
Tillman Act made corporate donations to Federal candidates illegal. Years later, money became
an issue again during the Watergate scandal which illuminated how companies and wealthy
elites were supplying President Nixon with huge amounts of hidden funds. Congress then passed
5
Anthony Turner
Elections?
amendments to the 1971 Federal Election Campaign Act which created the Federal Election
Commission. This led to the option for candidates to receive federal funding for their General
campaigns (The United States of America, 1999).
Then over the next 20 years, money and campaigns rose to become a major issue that
marginalized in the electorates perspective that maybe money is a big issue. This issue became
the focus and purview of the U.S. Supreme Court. The public was complaining that as fast as
Congress enacted laws and amended existing laws to mitigate the influence of money on the
election cycle; shrewd and clever attorneys were finding loopholes to exploit in order to funnel
even more money to the candidates and their campaigns. During this period, the political action
committees (PACS) and 527s were emphasized and engineered to, Spend more money on
campaigns. Then in the post-Citizens united world it became Super-Pacs and 501c (4) social
welfare organizations that took advantage of the loopholes in the law to again, Spend more
money on campaigns (United States of America, 2000).
Today, even though there are many components needed for a successful campaign such
as the right candidate, messaging, economy, policy, social issues, world issues and the new
changes to campaign finance laws; without money, even the best candidate still, will not get their
message out to the electorate. Although Michael M. Franz focus was on midterm elections and
the House and Senate, his research raised notable points that can be attributable to the
Presidential race also. Franz poses the concern of many Americans that the rise in spending on
campaigns may potentially be a corrupting influence on the benefiting candidate. Mr. Franz also
raises a specific question concerning the influence of big money donors on an election as it
relates to Citizens United v. FEC. Part of the argument he posed is the what if factor of big
corporations and big money donors being allowed to raise even larger amounts. According to
6
Anthony Turner
Elections?
Franz, campaigns would become an investment vehicle rather that an election. Mr. Franz defers
that judgment to the 2012 and 2014 elections which proved his conjecture to be correct (Micheal
M. Franz, 2010). With everything being perfect, if there is no war chest, the best-laid plan will
not equate to a successful candidacy for the White House.
The Historical Economics of Elections

In past years, economists, political experts, and strategist have insisted that money does
not make a difference or that money is not the primary cause for a person to win the job as
President. However, there is an emerging group of new political and economic theorist that
supports the very opposite idea. This emerging research is based on prioritizing the needed
components of a successful campaign and the findings reveal that there is an emerging common
relationship between winning and losing the Presidency and that common denominator is money.
Additionally, political economists are now saying that money is a big issue; so big that money in
the campaign is now corrupting the process. Jacob S. Hacker & Nathaniel Loewentheil in How
Big Money Corrupts the Economy asks the following; If war is politics by other means,
political spending is economic war by other means. (Loewentheil, 2013) Runaway campaign
spending and lobbying dont just stand in the way of a fair political system; it also stands in the
way of an economy that works for the middle class. Jacob Hacker and N. Loewentheil
highlight the real reason why the rich and the elite dump billions of dollars into a campaign by
posing the following question. Why do corporations and the super-rich pour money into
campaigns and lobbying? The answer is quite clear, to buy votes and ensure that their best
candidate gets the nomination and runs for the White House (Boaz, 2013). Jacob Hacker and N.
Loewentheil further explains the following on how important the contributions of the rich and
7
Anthony Turner
Elections?
powerful are and how their billions collectively contribute to the winning candidate. In, How
Big Money Corrupts the Economy, they make the following statement that is an explicit
expose of the Invisible Primary and the reason money matters even more now than ever before
in history. Hacker and Loewentheil say, Today, however, the floodwalls between the market
and democracy are washing away and both sides of the barrier are being reshaped by the new
currents of influence. Its not just the sheer volume of dollars thats driving the change. At least
as important is the growing gulf between those at the commanding heights of our economy and
the rest of Americans. The share of pretax national income going to the richest 0.1 percent has
roughly quadrupled since the 1970s. At the same time, as our economy has grown more
globalized and finance has increased in importance, many of the richest companies have
increasingly separated themselves from the fate of ordinary U.S. workers. The interests of
todays corporate titans are not as well aligned with the interests of the American middle class as
they were a generation ago. Yet government too often has failed to respond or has responded in
ways that actually made the problems worse. A major reason is the weakening political clout of
the middle class in a more money-centered political world (Loewentheil, 2013). This is the
problem created by Citizens United and its offspring, Super PACs and dark money. The money
that is poured into issue advocacy and attack ads serves no other purpose but to buy and guide
the vote of uneducated voters and achieve the end-game; winner writes the rules. Loewentheil
repeats what David Koch said during the 2012 campaign which further proves the obvious. Mr.
Koch said the following, ... Our main interest is in policy. This from a man who, combined
with his brother and the political network he leads, spent more in the 2012 election cycle than the
entire campaign of John McCain did in 2008. (Loewentheil, 2013)
8
Anthony Turner
Elections?
The Human Equation of the Vanishing Voting Booth and (Social Capital)
Putnam describes social capital as features of social life-networks, norms, and trust that
enable participants to act together more effectively to pursue shared objectives. (Putnam, 1995)
As we will discuss later in this research, there are influencing factors such as the electoral
process, voter turnout, race and income, changes in economics, mobility, demographics and
voter apathy that further impacts the diminishing power of the voting booth. These processory
political influences that have been highlighted and enhanced by the Citizens United ruling is
what this research will investigate in the second half of this paper; however, social capital is the
daily norms that get squeezed out by these political upheavals.
It is unusual for political scientists to use or refer to the social capital as a concept of the
political process but there are some concepts that are similar. Also, social capital has been
theorized in current literature as an effect on political behavior. But according to Condon,
previous studies are far from unanimous in finding positive effects of social capital on political
participation. And, the conclusions of many of these studies are controversial due to problems
with drawing causal inferences from observational data, especially in the case of social capital.
(Condon, 2009) But for this argument, we will agree with the positions of Putnam, Atkinson, and
Bartels that social capital does diminish the power and presence of the voting booth.
Dr. Atkinson from the University of California pointedly explains the Vanishing Voting
Booth from the same perspective as Robert Putnam. He says, Rational choice theories struggle
to explain voter turnout because the expected benefits of voting do not outweigh the costs. While
voting may not be rational from a self-interested individuals perspective, high turnout is in the
interest of like-minded groups. For example, if every low-income American voted, they would
achieve greater political representation, and public policy would shift in their favor. However,
9
Anthony Turner
Elections?
voting requires time and information, and there is little chance that one vote will change the
outcome of an election. Thus, turnout poses a classic collective action problem. (Atkinson)
Putnam goes on to further expound on this by stating the following, Social capital may provide
a solution to the collective action problem of voter turnout. Robert Putnam defines social capital
as citizen engagement in community affairs. (Atkinson) While the social capital of a
community is typically measured through levels of membership in civic organizations and survey
responses regarding trust in ones community, these estimates simply provide proxies for the true
level of connectedness and engagement in a community. A huge part of community engagement
is voting and high voter turnout is in the best interest of the community. The use of social capital
as alluded to by Putnam can enhance and remind the members of the community of the benefits
of wholesale participation and benefits of voting and this remembrance will cause peer pressure
to force political participation. Also, social capital can influence an increase in turnout by
increasing the modes of communication within a community. Social networks within a
community allow the members of the community to share information and have meaningful
dialogue on the political issue and information. According to Putnam, the result is an increase in
political interest and participation. (Putnam, 1995)
Dr. Condon adds to the social capital discussion and its effect on voting by offering four
major hypotheses that exist in the current literature about the ways in which social capital, or
some aspect of it, may increase political participation. First, the interpersonal trust and norms of
reciprocity that comprise social capital could translate into attitudes of generalized social trust,
which could lower the cost of collective action. Second, social capital could positively affect
participation by increasing trust in democratic institutions, again through a process in which one
type of trust (interpersonal) transforms into another (institutional). Third, social capital could
10
Anthony Turner
Elections?
increase participation by facilitating the enforcement of social norms of participation within the
network. And fourth and finally, social capital could affect voting by increasing the flow of
political information within the network. (Condon, 2009) The main point of this is, The theory
of social capital presumes that generally speaking, the more we connect with other people, the
more we trust them, and vice versa. (Putnam, 1995) Before Citizens United, the effects of social
capital such as: belonging to groups and civic engagement, business and time pressure, war and
terrorism, the welfare state, and the technological age has all affected voter education and
turnout. Citizens United has then emerged and exasperated the problems even more. All of these
pressures has caused voter apathy and contributed to the vanishing voting booth.
The pressures of acquiring and maintaining social capital have been seriously aggravated
by the political process and this has affected the human equation of voting. Before Citizens
United, the Voting Booth was already in decline. The past four decades has seen the voting rate
decline in every presidential election. In the 1992 presidential election, a recession and the third
party bid of Ross Perot caused a 5 percent increase in voter turn-out but in the following 1996
election, the turnout plunged to 49 percent. Then from 1960 through 2000, the U.S. experienced
the longest ebb in voter turnout. The declining participation of voters is not the only sign of the
vanishing voter booth but other factors are contributing. Since 1960, there has been a decline in
voters and volunteers who work in the political campaigns. Currently, even when it comes to
tribute only one in eight checks the box to contribute $3 to the presidential campaign as opposed
to 1974 when one in three checked the same box. This raises three questions of interest. One,
what could possibly explain such trends? Two, why are citizens drawing back from election
politics? And three, why is the voting booth vanishing? These are the core question that will be
answered and why this research is very important.
11
Anthony Turner
Elections?
The Electoral Process Equation
Before we answer the questions of what, why and where is the vanishing voting booth;
we must explain why the voters are experiencing less enthusiasm for the political process of the
presidential election process. The electorate is constantly pursuing the American dream and this
pursuit of happiness along with the diminishing social capital and the pressures of the political
process are daunting. Americans are trying to maintain a sense of social and economic
equilibrium and family security and their involvement in the political process is not a priority.
Many eligible voters do not even understand the process and those that do choose not to get
involved because of the many pressures of life. Then add the electoral process and we find even
more potential voters make the decision that their vote does not matter.
The parties have been running against each other for a public position at every level of
government whether it is national, state or local; campaigns are the way to get elected to office.
This process is a two-part process which first includes winning the party nomination and then
defeating the opposing partys candidate(s) in a general election. Methods of nomination vary
through time and state to state. There are informal caucuses where party leaders meet to decide
their candidate. Then as the parties became more complex and took on more responsibility; local
caucuses developed. These local caucuses met with other local and regional groups and thus
emerged the party conventions. Then there is another method of nominating a candidate which is
through the primary election process which gives the voter the opportunity to directly vote and
select their candidate. The culmination of this process is the presidential election. The candidates
that are selected for these conventions are generally pledged to support a particular candidate that
is running for office under the party banner. After the party picks their runner, the general
election begins and during this period the candidates of both partys run against each other. Also
12
Anthony Turner
Elections?
during the general election, the candidates are trumpeting their parties statement of position on
varying issues and political topics which are called a plank or platform. Not everyone runs
with a certain partys backing and support. These are Independent candidates. As simple as
this may sound, to a potential voter that is facing the pressure of life and diminishing social
capital can quite understandably become disgruntled and disenfranchised by the whole process.
Now, further analysis of the electoral process and the merits of this argument, lets
examine the primary election specifically and the effect of the Citizens United decision. Most
economists and political theorist would agree that at this point money does not play a part except
for John sides who makes the point that, even from the beginning money makes the
determination of who runs and who doesnt (Feingold J. M., 2012). From the very beginning,
when potential candidates are crisscrossing the Country, the whole purpose is to present
themselves as a good investment vehicle. As Cohen states, The invisible primary is the principal
institutional means by which party members decide the person they want to be their nominee, the
equivalent of bargaining at party conventions in the old system (M.Cohen, 2008). In this
invisible primary, the party members are making decisions, gathering endorsements and
screening for the favorite (M.Cohen, 2008). During the Primary, the candidates are testing their
message and their ability to characterize and articulate their messaging in order to sway the party
insiders. Candidates understand that they must build support for their candidacy with these
special influencers that control the money and the resources that can enable them to run a
successful campaign. At this level of scrutiny, the candidate must display superior skills,
presenting their position on the issues and their electability. As mentioned before, President
Ronald Reagan in 1979 spent less money and spent an overwhelming amount of time traveling
across the country impressing local party officials with his carefully crafted and articulated
13
Anthony Turner
Elections?
vision (M.Cohen, 2008). However, both Bush and Obama followed this same prescription and
both went on to be President but they had to pass the test of the invisible primary and the primary
election in order to receive the nomination. This was different for both President Bush and
Obama because they had to reach a new type of electorate that President Reagan did not have to
worry about. This new electorate that had to be reached and bought through huge public relations
and marketing campaigns; are the Independent voter. So, considering that, at this stage, several
things must take place and be successful. The Candidates must raise huge and historical amounts
money, secure favorable media coverage, build a campaign organization and hone their appeal to
the voters. Then this must translate to swaying the Party leaders who also have an interest in the
best candidate moving forward to the General election. The Partys then steps in and scrutinizes
and winnows down the field of candidates to a manageable few before voters get involved. They
must ensure that the best candidate is put forth for nomination and this candidate must be one
that they believe that the voters can coalesce behind (M.Cohen, 2008). At this level, a candidate
could spend less but yet get the nomination because in the end at the level of the Primary, money
doesnt matter necessarily, the best investment does. Why? The Primary is the testing ground for
candidates. The Party and its activists are sorting out the worst investment based on the
candidates electability. The candidates electability leads to the nomination and then that
nomination leads to the most important component, raising campaign cash. So, moving forward
into the Primary, if the best candidate continues to improve his electability skills, then the
candidate with the most cash will win.
Entering the General election, both Parties have sorted out their worst candidates and are
left with the best person to put forward. This candidate has the best message, the best grasp of
the issues, has proven to be a good fundraiser, is electable and charismatic and has received the
14
Anthony Turner
Elections?
Party nomination. The playing field is now equal. Both the GOP and the Democrats are starting
at the same line with the best race horses that they could muster. For all sense and arguments,
the campaign field is equal. Now the race begins. Neither candidate will be changing their
message nor will they vacillate from the plank that is the agreed upon Party platform. All the
variables will remain constant, except money.
We have summarized the: Historical Background of Money and Elections, The Historical
Economics of Elections, The Human Equation of the Vanishing Voting Booth and (Social
Capitol) and The Electoral Process Equation and all the factors outline how the voting booth has
been affected by a ruling called Citizens United versus FEC.
Introducing Citizens United

The two main reasons why a person runs for the Presidency is to control the issues and to
have power and he that controls the issues and holds the power controls the money. Again, as
Sides has said, money is predictive of outcomes...The candidate who spends more is more
likely to win (Feingold J. M., 2012). In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with special
interests and removed many of the restrictions that existed on the amount of money that can be
contributed to a political campaign. The 2008 campaign was double the amount compared with
2004. Then in 2012 that amount quadrupled compared to 2008. Again money is at the core and
candidates understand that today money is the only King in political campaigns like Mark Hanna
said over 150 years ago. The ruling of Citizens United certified what President George W. Bush
started and President Obama improved upon, that free speech equates to money and money
greatly influences the outcome of the General Election.
15
Anthony Turner
Elections?
The Citizens United case granted corporations the same protection of Free Speech as
people have under the First Amendment. It was not based on the utterance of a message or an
idea; however, this decision confirmed how important money is to win an election, especially a
Presidential election. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that corporations have the same unalienable
rights as people and, their right to free speech is money. In this interpretation of the Courts,
people (corporations) speak with their money and since money is speech; then corporations have
a Constitutional Right to speak as much and as loudly as they want with their money. Citizens
United galvanized the un-ignorable fact that corporations and rich elites should not be inhibited
from their ability to speak their language, the language of cash (Citizens United v. Federal
Election Commission, 2010). Prior to this ruling, there was a limit of $123, 200 that any
individual could donate to a political campaign in a two-year election cycle. Also, the law
limited the amount a person could donate to a single candidate. Now with the new changes,
money has come out on top again (Open Secrets, 2012). Currently, a donor can give to as many
candidates as the donor wishes up to a limit of $3.6 million in an election cycle. With these new
un-limits on money donations to candidates, the wealthy or rather the top 2% of the Nation could
purchase enough votes to buy up the whole of Congress. As an example, in 2010 0.01% of the
donating electorate accounted for about 25% of all the money donated to parties, politicians, and
PACS and if this is any indication of the environment of money influencing and controlling the
outcomes of Presidential elections, it proves that the courts are complicit in loosening the rules
(Open Secrets, 2012). According to Boaz, this complicity by the courts is a damning of the
common electorates ability to get a fair vote in a time of economic inequality, rising corporate
profits and declining social input and mobility. This loosening of the rules will increase the
effectiveness and influence of those that finance the purchasing of votes (Boaz, 2013).
16
Anthony Turner
Elections?
Citizens United vs. FEC also enhanced the ability of money to control and purchase not
only votes but how the ideas and the ideology of the voters are shaped through issue advocacy.
This new allowance opened the door for money to be a direct influence on voter engineering.
The Citizens United decision invalidated parts of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act
(BCRA) which is also identified as the McCain-Feingold Act (Feingold S. J., 2012). The BCRA
was designed to tighten regulations and regulate issue advocacy. The BCRA defined that
Unions and corporations could not donate or spend money towards ads at the beginning of an
election cycle. It stated that they had to donate to a PAC to purchase the ads and that PAC could
only accept a limited amount of cash from the unions and the corporations. Citizens United
struck down the provision of the BCRA that imposed limitations on the amounts of cash that
money groups could spend at one time. It made it possible for union and corporations to spend a
limitless amount of cash or money directly on independent ads in a campaign that could either
support or oppose a candidate just as long as they do not explicitly name the candidate or call for
the support or defeat of that candidate. Even though Citizens United eliminated a small portion
of the BCRA, the majority of the law still stands (Feingold S. J., 2012). However, this small but
hugely significant change opened the door wide open for the allowance of corporations and
unions to enter the political election game in a very lopsided way. This again is what our
Founders feared the most, the effect of money engineering and buying elections. The recent
2012 election cycle validated again why money does matter in the General election in a
Presidential campaign.
The other aspect of Citizen United that validated the ruling position of money in
campaigns, especially Presidential campaigns is issue advocacy. Even though these forms of
ads cannot directly benefit a particular candidate, the funders and designers of these issue ads are
17
Anthony Turner
Elections?
prescribed to a certain party ideology and a certain party. They utilize these forms of ads in the
most effective way money can buy. The investment in issue advocacy is mainly used to purchase
and broadcast negative ads which have been proven to be a most effective tool for those with the
most money to purchase these types of ads. Franz noted in an article published in the American
Politics research in March 2010 proved this very same point (Michael M. Franz, 2010). His
research showed that the natural experiment of ads that spilled over into non-battlefield states,
where people wouldnt have also received a barrage of campaign mail and canvassers, Franz
and his colleagues isolated the effects of television advertising. They found that a 1,000- ad
advantage in any given market over the course of an election increased a candidates vote share
by .5 percentage points (Ridout, 2010). In light of his recent study, during the 2012 election
cycle over $3 billion was spent on the broadcast of these types of advertisements which broke
records previously set according to Moodys Investment Services. With this much money being
invested there is another overwhelming fact that elections, especially the race for the White
House does matter and does buy the winner votes and the office.
So why does it matter so much? Why does having the most money matter when it comes
to issue advocacy also? Well, most issue advocacy ads have become negative or attack ads.
These types of ads are very effective and they cost lots of money to engineer, design, and
broadcast. Ted Brader in the American Journal found that these ads create fear in people and
appeal to their emotions. Because the electorate is vulnerable because of not being educated
voters, huge amounts of cash are funneled into these ads in order to create an atmosphere of fear
around an issue. These most used ads are created to heighten and increase a level of fear and
confusion as opposed to ads that make you happy and comfortable which does not drive votes.
Given these types of effects, the campaigns have a treasure chest of good ads for when they are
18
Anthony Turner
Elections?
leading in the polls and negative ads for when they are on the attack (Brader, 2005). Romney in
2012 utilized this tactic. The week before the Primary, 99 percent of Romneys ads were
negative ads against Mr. Gingrich. Even though this is a slight diversion from the General
election path; it proves the point that money influences voters by utilizing its most influential
tool, media.
Why this Research is Important

We are two elections into Citizens United vs. FEC and the political landscape is feeling
the effects of that Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court changed how money influences
elections and repositioned who influences elections. That is why this paper is very important.
This research is important to voters, citizens seeking election and even students that desire to
understand the mechanics of the political campaign after 2010. Citizens United canceled the ban
on corporate and unions making independent donations to the cause of electioneering and
campaign finance. It gave them permission to donate unlimited amounts of money to finance ads
and other political resources that directly influence or advocate for the support or defeat of
individual candidates. So, in actuality, the court's 5-4 decision permitted corporations and labor
unions to donate as much as the want to in order to persuade the voter to vote for or against a
candidate.
It is still illegal for corporations and unions to give funds directly to candidates at the
federal level because these types of funding were not being spent in unison with a campaign so it
does not lend itself to corruption or the appearance of corruption and influence. The question
now is, If this is interpreted to mean that the decision is about spending then why there is so
much fuss about contributions? In any case, the Citizens United was a surprise given the caution
19
Anthony Turner
Elections?
given to the legalities regarding corporate and union money being infused into federal campaigns
to influence them. In 1907 the Tillman Act banned corporations from funding campaigns and
then in 1947 the Taft-Hartley Act extended the bans to unions. So the Citizens United decision
was a step away from precedent and that is what makes it so important to all involved with the
political process today and until changes are instituted by the court or Congress.
Explaining the Vanishing Voting Booth The human capacity

Dr. Putman is arguing the premise that the participation of the electorate in the United
States of America is on the decline. (Putnam, 1995) Putman poses the argument also that this
decline is a net loss of social capital which in his theory; is a threat to the stability of the U.S. He
relates this decline to the analogy of a person bowling by him/herself as opposed to bowling on a
team. Dr. Putnam also looks at the current and past trends as it relates to politics and political
participation and uses his study in the areas of education, the pressure of available time and
money on the electorate, electorate mobility, electorate suburbanization, the evolving role of
women, the family and marriage, the rise of the welfare state, race and civil rights, generational
trends, and the effects within these groups to explain his theory that we are losing social capital.
On the other hand, there are critics such as sociologist Claude Fischer who argues that Dr.
Putnam findings are skewed because of his errant interpretation of the statistical data because
this is an area of sociology. Fischer asks, Did Dr. Putman take into account natural shifts in the
electorate as Dr. V.O. Key in his article A Theory of Critical Elections discusses concerning
generational shifts in the electorate which may provide for the possibility of other causes of his
argument of decline in social capital. If this is true then the question that must be posed is, Are
we losing social capital or is it just evolving into other forms of social capital may be
20
Anthony Turner
Elections?
untraditional of sorts? In the end, Dr. Putman rejects part of his argument because of
technological advances and not the loss of the nostalgia of the 1950s. This shift to technology is
expressed when he talks about, the performance of government and other social institutions
is powerfully influenced by citizen and community engagement in community affairs... on page
664 of his research lecture. (Putnam, 1995) He at first lays the groundwork of the social capital
loss on the community activities listed on page one (1) of this critical analysis to describe the
loss of participation in civic engagement. Then on page 677 he begins to re-analyze his previous
findings and thus begins his shift to the plausibility that technology is more than likely the cause
using television watching as the basis of his analysis. (Putnam, 1995)
Dr. Putman's argument is worthy and establishes the basis of this paper and its
examination of Citizens United, its effect, and possible future implications. This section
examines some of the major capacity issues such as voting trends and numbers of Presidential
elections before and after Citizens United including a specific look at the 2004 Bush campaign
and the 2008 and 2012 Obama campaign. Also examined are other human capacity issues like
voter mobility, women in the electorate, race and voting, the economy and short voter attention
span. Keep in mind that these issues are not necessarily directly affected by Citizens United or at
the very least; there is no comparative data to establish any trends. Yet, it is worth exploring
whether or not the Court's decision may have an impact on these capacity issues in a more
intellectual or non-direct psychological perspective on an individual voter basis.
Voting and the Presidential Elections Before and After Citizens United
Since the 2004 General Presidential Election of George W. Bush, public relations and
marketing have stepped to the forefront of driving the presidential campaign. The electorate can
no longer be swayed by savvy consultants as Mr. Romney in 2012 was misled to believe. The
21
Anthony Turner
Elections?
influences of money and the campaign has now reached such an epic height, that the Courts have
ruled in favor of money and campaigns in a manner that support the idea that without money, the
campaign doesnt matter. The Citizens United case and all following cases that have been
adjudicated were not argued on the merits of the campaign message nor the issues of the
campaign season and other campaign issues; they argued on a political basis of how money
affects the outcomes of the campaign. Take the issue of money out of the arguments, and there
would be no Citizens United nor would the Supreme Court have ruled that Corporations are
people also with the same freedom of speech; which in the corporations case is money (Citizens
United v. Federal Election Commission, 2010).
The case of First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti was argued on the merits of money
and the importance of how it influences the outcomes of elections (First National Bank of Boston
v. Bellotti, 1978). All of these court cases and arguments surround not only the primary but also
the general election, and highlights the most important question of today in our capitalistic
society. The question of this argument is, How much truth is there to the adage that the
Presidential candidate in the General Election that spends the most money wins? Upon closer
examination, there have only been two (2) exceptions to the rule of the General Election
Presidential candidate with the most money winning and they were President Clinton in 1996
and Ronald Reagan in 1981. These General Election winners spent less than their opponents but
yet won because there were extraordinary circumstances influencing their candidacy. President
Reagan was taking over after the failed Carter administration and the Iran conflict which was a
distasteful event for the U.S. electorate and President Clinton (D) trumping of Senator Bob Dole
(R) because of President George W. Bushs (R) economic recession coupled with his perceived
failure to end the war and his handling of domestic affairs which the electorate counted as some
22
Anthony Turner
Elections?
of President Bush's worst failing. These were extreme exceptions where the electorate was sorely
displeased over current issues and it translated into a net gain for the General Election candidate
that spent the least amount of money in the campaign. Still, removing these anomalies, we are
back to the fact that, in the General Election, the Presidential candidate with the most money will
win.
The Bush Campaign
The Bush campaigns of both 2000 and 2004 are significant because this was the first
Presidential campaign where the question of buying the election became a hot topic. Even
though Mark Hanna during the election year of President Benjamin Harrison stated the
following, There are two things that are important in politics; the first is money, and I can't
remember what the second one is; this election brought that unacknowledged fact to the
forefront of economic politics (The United States of America, 1999). In 2000, the Bush
campaign solidified the fact that in order to get the message out, the campaign needed cash
because the engagement of the electorate had changed (Steve Rabinowitz, 2000). According to
Rabinowitz, the majority of the electorate was receiving their information from television.
Nationwide, the Bush campaign outspent Gore by $9 million, $85.1 million for Bush and $77.1
million for Gore. Fast-forwarding to the Battleground State of Florida illustrates the fact that
money does decide elections. In Florida, combined Bush campaign and Republican Party ad
spending were nearly even with Gore and Democratic spending in the Key West Palm Beach,
Tampa-St. Petersburg and Orlando media markets. But in the politically conservative markets of
(Mobile, AL-) Pensacola and Jacksonville, Bush forces substantially outspent Gore ($820,000350,000 in Pensacola, $1.1 million-$130,000 in Jacksonville). An in all-important Miami
reaching Miami-Dade and much of Broward counties Bush and the Republicans spent $6 million
23
Anthony Turner
Elections?
to Gore and the Democrats $3.4 million. Unlike other battleground states, perhaps most
noteworthy is that Gore enjoyed nearly no independent TV ad spending on his behalf anywhere
in Florida. Then when we examine Independent groups, which we must because this race was the
emergence in the mass of Independents and how their vote matters; the net gain for either
candidate was zero. Independent groups spent roughly equal amounts on ads for Republican and
Democratic candidates in all federal races in the 2000 campaign, but they focused on different
contests. With Citizens for Better Medicare (a pharmaceutical industry group), U.S. Chamber of
Commerce, Business Roundtable, and Americans for Job Security (a Sec. 527 group backed by
Sen. Majority Leader Trent Lott) taking the lead, groups spent $27.5 million on ads for
Republican candidates in 2000, with three-quarters of that money $20.5 million dedicated to U.S.
House races. Led by Planned Parenthood, AFL-CIO, Handgun Control, and Emilys List,
independent groups spent $29 million on ads for Democratic candidates, with roughly half that
sum $14 million spent in the presidential contest (Steve Rabinowitz, 2000).
Then in the re-election campaign for Presidential Bush in 2004, his campaign set new
fundraising records. Bush for the first time exceeded $201 million in money raised and according
to FEC reports; Bush started in May with over $72 million left in the bank after spending over
$31 million on marketing in April. In March when his campaign spending decline, he yet spent
nearly $50 million on campaign marketing and media for the first wave of campaign ads. Now,
everyone thought that President Obama was the first in raising substantial amounts of campaign
cash from individuals, but that is false. The Bush campaign for the first time in history received
over a million donations from ordinary contributors across the Country and the donations
averaged $153 each. Then in May 2004, Bush had doubled the amount raised by Kerry by taking
24
Anthony Turner
Elections?
in $3 million which brought his total to $204 million compared to Kerrys $110 million (Steve
Rabinowitz, 2000).
Then according to Drutman, there is the moneys effect on incorrect voting, which by the
way was a factor in the Bush election that did not receive press time. Money also influences this
outcome and it is undeniable. Between 1972 and 2004 a study by Sean Richey determined that
13.6% of voters did in fact vote incorrectly for the GOP in the Presidential election in contrast to
only 8.7% of voters voting incorrectly for Democrats (Drutman, 2012). Richey (a Georgia state
University Professor) determined that money was a definite and undeniable factor in incorrect
voting and that money gave the GOP the advantage. The GOP could raise more campaign cash
than the Democrats and spend more of it which equates into buying more convincing and
misleading ads. Richey goes on to say, These results suggest that the Republicans financial
advantage gave them the purchasing power to create persuasive campaigns that
disproportionately brought incorrect votes to the Republican side and as the Republican
advantage in campaign resources grew, their share of incorrect voting grew (Richey, 2012).
After Richeys findings were publicized, many people, especially political theorists from the
traditional school of thought questioned how a mere professor can decide whether somebody
voted correctly or incorrectly. Again, that is a faulty question to ask because the American
National Election Studies ; whose mission is to serve the research needs of social scientists,
teachers, students, policy makers and journalists, and produce high-quality data from its own
surveys on voting, public opinion, and political participation, supports Richeys findings
(Richey, 2012). So, based on the questions of ideology political scientist Richard R. Lau and
David P. Redlawsk developed a formula to assess whether or not a voter chose the candidate that
properly matches their political profile (Lau, 2006). If the individual chose correctly, then they
25
Anthony Turner
Elections?
voted correctly. Based on the formula they went back ten (10) Presidential Elections from 1972
thru 2004 and estimated the percentage of votes cast incorrectly for both parties. In addition to
2000 and 2004, He also estimates that had voters chose correctly, Gerald Ford would have
defeated Jimmy Carter in 1976. (Drutman, 2012) (See Table 2 in Appendix)
Richey also successfully argues that if a campaign has more resources than the other to
do more persuasive manipulation than their opponent; they could sway or skew the vote. He also
believes that political scientist would agree that based on these findings, voters would be inept
and incapable nor have the knowledge and skills to overcome this type of manipulation.
Inevitably, the skew in hard money spending during the Bush campaigns by the GOP leads to
greater incorrect voting in favor of the GOP candidates. Richey wrote. Greater skew in hard and
soft money spending also decrease the likelihood of voting incorrectly for Democratic
candidates, which further increases skew. These are large marginal effects (Richey, 2012). This
new information helps to prove that money did successfully push President G. Bush into the
White House. It not only gave him more exposure, bought him more media but also provided his
campaign with the best attorneys to defend the hanging chad controversy. Money did matter.
The Obama Campaign
Then the following 2008 Presidential cycle furthered the fact that money does buy the
White House. The 2008 election cycle was historic and it confirmed America's love of capitalism
and democracy. This election cycle re-confirmed the only one truism of U.S. democracy; money
does win elections. At the top of the ticket was Barack Obama, an unknown untested Senator
from Illinois that passed the test of the primary and led the way in proving that if you wanted to
win; one must design infallible money generating campaign machine. Obama declined public
financing, the first candidate to do so since the creation of federal financing and out-raised
26
Anthony Turner
Elections?
McCain 2 to 1. This pattern created campaign fundraising coat tailors across the nation and
even in the Congressional races, the candidate with the most money won nearly every contest
(Jaobsen, 2013). This money-making advantage equated into teaching the political nation that if
you want to win, you must lead the race for cash. Not only did President Obama outspend
McCain but 94% of House races and 73 percent of Senate races went to the top campaign
fundraising candidate. The losers were competing in the district where either the Democratic or
the GOP base was solid and there was no hope for an opposite party to be elected (OpenSecrets,
2012).
Looking specifically at the General election, again, the candidate that spent the most won.
Also, the 2008 Presidential Election was the first time in U.S. history that over $1 Billion was
raised campaigning for the Presidency. (See Figure 3 in Appendix) McCain took public
financing during the General election cycle which limited him to an $84 million limit on what he
could spend which created a huge disadvantage for him compared to Obama and his cash
machine. President Obama raised $66 million more than McCains $84 million in September by
itself. (See figures 4, 5, and 6 in Appendix on McCains spending and fundraising activities)
(Federal Election Commission, 2014).
On the other hand, President Obamas fundraising was on a different trajectory. President
Obama re-wrote the strategy on money and winning the White House. In 2008, his campaign set
unprecedented campaign fundraising records by generating over $1.7 billion collectively which
was double that of four years prior according to FEC filings (Federal Election Commission,
2014). Winning the Presidency Senator Obama became the first major-party nominee to reject
federal financing for the General election. His candidacy accounted for over 44% of the entire
2008 election cycle (Federal Election Commission, 2014).
27
Anthony Turner
Elections?
The 2012 election was much the same for President Obama and his challenger Mitt
Romney. Both were the best candidates available to their perspective parties at the time of the
nomination process. Both had a polished message and both had luggage, however, their parties
yet picked them because they were their best candidates and in effect had passed their parties
Primary election litmus test. But when it came down to the most important factor that influenced
the race, Obama again had the advantage, money. Not just money in the Primarys but also
money for the general election where fundraising and spending mean the most (Dowdle, 2002).
In the general election successful campaigns understand that the electorate has a very
short attention span. Obama knew this, understood this and built his strategy around this fact. Yet
to be successful he and his campaign understood that the holy grail of politics, is money. Even
the GOP understood that money mattered and they spent hundreds of millions in their attempt to
unseat Obama; in the end, they had very little show for it. The Obama campaign knew that
money would enable them to work a very simple yet strategic plan which on the onset was
totally about defining his opponent, Romney before he could define himself in the opening
salvos of the general election. Obama spent large amounts of money immediately purchasing
airtime characterizing Romney as an out-of-touch multimillionaire that had no possible way of
connecting and understanding the dreams, aspirations, and needs of the middle-class and the
poor. When Romney did fight back, it was way too little and way too late. In this component of
the campaign season, money was definitely the key. From May through August, the Obama
campaigned spent $245 million in media and marketing alone and this happened before Romney
could legally access his general funds. Then when Romneys campaign finally accessed those
funds, they spent a mere $142 million which proved unsuccessful in countering the attacks of the
28
Anthony Turner
Elections?
Obama and the PACs like USA Action, which was aligned with his campaign. Again access to
money made the difference (Federal Election Commission, 2014).
The strategy the Obama campaign designed was the same strategy the Bush campaign
implemented, the difference was the changed political public relations and marketing landscape.
The Obama campaign was put on capitalistic steroids to meet the need of the changing landscape
of voter memory and imagery (Dingfelder, 2012). This landscape is all about how many votes
your campaign dollars can buy and the engineering, design, and marketing for these types of
campaign and issue advocacy ads are not cheap. The Presidential general campaign is no
different than pork barrel appropriations. According to Boaz, these are vote buys. When
congressional politicians appropriate money for student aid, farmers, the auto industry and other
voting blocs, they are purchasing votes. Yet it seems when it comes to the election of the
President we hold on to purist ideals of nostalgia neglecting the fact that Presidential elections
are also solely about buying the vote, which Table 7 in the Appendix illustrates (Boaz, 2013).
The data explains the fact of not only buy how much Obama outraised Romney but also
how the money was spent overall. The Obama campaign raised $1.2 billion compared to
Romneys $1.18 billion and spent $227.1 million compared to Romneys $151 million. Also, in
the key areas of fundraising, polling, events and most importantly advertising and media, Obama
outspent Romney nearly 2 to 1 (Federal Election Commission, 2014). Now both candidates
according to the determination of their respective parties were their best candidates, with the best
messaging and the best grasp and understanding of the issues that was affecting the U.S. during
that time period. They advanced these same candidates to the General election where again, as
history has proven, the candidate with the most money to get the approved party message out to
29
Anthony Turner
Elections?
the electorate won again (See the 2012 Presidential Race in Appendix that outlines the 2012
Presidential campaign, its fundraising, and its expenditures).
Voting Trends 1996 thru 2012(Including race and age)

This analysis reveals an increasingly diverse American electorate. According to Census
Bureau information, specifically for presidential elections since 1996, overall voting rates have
fluctuated in presidential races, from as low of 58.4 percent of the citizen population in 1996 to a
high of about 64.0 percent in both 2004 and 2008. In 2012, the overall voting rate was 61.8
percent. Since 1996, the number of citizens eligible to vote has increased in every presidential
election, as has the number of citizens who have reported voting. Overall, 133 million people
reported voting in 2012, a turnout increase of about 2 million people since the election of 2008.
Between 1996 and 2008, turnout increases varied but was always larger than in 2012, reaching a
high of about 15 million additional voters in 2004. In comparison to the election of 2008, about
1.7 million additional Black voters reported going to the polls in 2012, as did about 1.4 million
additional Hispanics and about 550,000 additional Asians. The number of non-Hispanic White
voters decreased by about 2 million between 2008 and 2012. Since 1996, this is the only example
of a race group showing a decrease in net voting from one presidential election to the next, and it
indicates that the 2012 voting population expansion came primarily from minority voters.
(United States Census Bureau, 2013)
Voting rates for Blacks were higher in 2012 than in any recent Presidential election, the
result of a steady increase in Black voting rates since 1996. Voting rates also increased among
Hispanics and Asians across some of the elections addressed in this analysis, although these
gains were not nearly as consistent as for Blacks. Non-Hispanic White voting rates dropped in
30
Anthony Turner
Elections?
both 2008 and 2012, after reaching a high of 67.2 percent in 2004. Overall, Black turnout rates
increased by about 13 percentage points between 1996 and 2012. Notably, among all race groups
and Hispanics, only Blacks showed a significant increase between 2008 and the most recent
election in 2012. Since 1996, Black voting rates have gone from trailing those of non-Hispanic
Whites by about 8 percentage points to surpassing them in 2012. (United States Census Bureau,
2013) Citizens United?
Just as with the voting race population, voting rates for the voting-age citizen population
have varied across recent election cycles and have tended to increase with age. In this section, we
will look specifically at the voting youth ages 18 24 years of age. According to a Census
Bureau report, in every presidential election since 1964, young voters between the ages of 18
through 24 have consistently voted at lower rates than all other age groups, although young adult
voting rates have fluctuated from one election to another. Overall, Americas youngest voters
have moved towards less engagement over time, as 18- through 24-year-olds voting rates
dropped from 50.9 percent in 1964 to 38.0 percent in 2012. The decline in voting rates discussed
in this first section is partially due to the increase in the noncitizen population, which by
definition does not vote. In certain elections, young adults have shown significant levels of
increased engagement, first in 1992, when 18- through 24-yearold voting rates increased to 42.8
percent, and then again in 2004 when young-adult voting rates increased to 41.9 percent.
Following the 1992 election increase, young-adult voting rates dropped to 32.4 percent in the
very next presidential election (1996). In contrast, following the 2004 election increase, youngadult voting rates increased once again in 2008 to 44.3 percent, before dropping off in the
election of 2012. (United States Census Bureau, 2014) So the question we must inquire of is,
31
Anthony Turner
Elections?
did Citizens United have a negative effect on the Presidential Campaign in 2012 as it relates to
the youth vote?
The data shows that Citizens United may have had an unintentional negative impact on
the voting decrease of the 2012 election. The youth vote dropped in 2012 because college
educated youth stayed away from the polls. According to Circle, The Center for Information and
Research on Civic Learning and Engagement, An estimated 23 million young Americans under
the age of 30 voted in the 2012 presidential election, representing a 50% turnout among eligible
young people, a comparable turnout to 2008. In 2008, young people came out to cast their votes
in record numbers, and we estimated that 52% of young eligible young Americans voted that
year. (CIRCLE - The Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement,
2012) The report continues by pointing out the following. About 40 percent of young eligible
voters between the age of 18 to 29 have not attended college. Historically, there have been
significant differences in youth political engagement by educational attainment. Continuing the
trend observed in the past elections, young people without college experience were
underrepresented in this election. Although 60% of the U.S. citizens between ages of 18-29 have
gone to college, 71% of the young voters had attended college, meaning that college-educated
young people were overrepresented among young people who voted. In 2008, 70% of the young
voters had college experience, while only 57% of U.S. citizens between the ages of 18 and 29
had college experience. Broken down further, it is clear that youth who are college graduates are
overrepresented among all young voters, whereas youth with less than college experience are
extremely underrepresented among youth who voted. The unintentional effect is demonstrated in
the following excerpt from the report. Young people, regardless of educational experience, felt
that the economy was the most important issue facing the country. Youth without college
32
Anthony Turner
Elections?
experience viewed the economy more positively than youth with college experience, despite
feeling that their personal economic situation is worse today compared to four years ago (29% of
youth without college experience, compared to 20% of college-educated youth). Nearly half of
youth without college experience felt that the economy is getting better, whereas only 42% of
youth with college experience felt the same. (CIRCLE - The Center for Information and
Research on Civic Learning and Engagement, 2012) It could be hypothesized that the effect of
negative ads by the supporters of the Obama campaign may have impacted the educated voting
youth by not addressing their concerns with the economy effectively; causing a two percent drop
in youth voter turnout compared with 2008. The conclusion of voter turnout and Citizens United
effect is that money does not necessarily get more people to the voting booth; however, it will
definitely affect their voting behaviors. The data shows that voter turnout from 1996 thru 2012
has remained consistent with fluctuations in the demographical areas of race (African American
and Hispanic) and the youth.
Citizens Voting Mobility
The Presidential election is decided by voters and not well-wishers. When it comes to
voter mobility, senior citizens are voting more consistent across all indicators than any other
group. According to a U.S. News Money Report, 61 percent of citizens age 65 and older voted in
the November 2010 election, the best turnout of any age group. More than half (54 percent) of
those ages 55 to 64 also cast a ballot. People under age 45 are much less likely to vote. Just 37
percent of 25- to 44-year-olds made it to the polls in November 2010. And not even a quarter (21
percent) of the youngest citizensages 18 to 24entered a voting booth in 2010. (U.S. News
Money, 2012)
33
Anthony Turner
Elections?
Another aspect of voter mobility is the registration process. Older voters tend not to move
as often as younger voters and working voters. Each time a worker is relocated or a younger
voter moves they must re-register in order to vote. In the rat race of the American Dream,
young people and voters with familys find that time is hard-pressed to schedule a trip to the
municipal office to file the necessary paperwork or the lack of time might also create voter
apathy. This amounts to more time needed out of an already compressed schedule while being
bombarded by attack ads and information seamlessly streamed at every commercial break.
The fact is that when it comes to voter mobility, Citizens United may be impacting the
senior vote again, in an indirect way. In a report issued by Senior Votes Count, their report said
that the disconnect between deceptive campaign messaging to seniors and reality has been
stark. Since the 2012 campaign, have we heard anything from seniors who have experienced any
of those Medicare cuts? The answer is an emphatic No! These cuts as portrayed simply didnt
exist. But the deceptive messaging still took its toll, and well-intentioned candidates were all too
often ill-prepared to counteract wild claims designed to arouse fear in the vulnerable senior
population with clear, direct messages of their own. (Senior Votes Count, 2014) Voter mobility
has been affected since Citizens United and the unleashing of attack ads and issue advocacy.
Economy and the Elections
Dr. Roy K. Roth in his research, Does the Economy Determine the President? A
Regression Model for Predicting US Presidential Elections he makes the point that if the
economy is good, the President keeps his job if it is bad, he is out. (Roth, 2012) He explores how
the electoral vote changes, not how the popular vote changes with economic conditions. The
author goes into great detail examining how these changes affect the probability that the
incumbent party stays in office. He concludes that economic conditions may not be as important
34
Anthony Turner
Elections?
as they have been purported to be. His research utilizes a small number of economic indicators,
coupled with measures of the tenure of the political party in the White House and an indicator of
whether or not the incumbent president is running for reelection to make predictions of the
election winners. The economic indicators he used were the growth rate of GNP, inflation rates,
and unemployment rates. He then compares the predictions of this model to the actual outcomes
to determine if the model has reliable predictive power. (Roth, 2012) He uses data ranging from
presidential elections from 1932 thru 2008 for a sample size of 20 and the results were mixed. He
found that the economic variable most consistently significant in the regression model was the
growth rates real production which was statistically significant in each of our electoral voteshare equations. (Roth, 2012) he sums his findings as follows. The most significant
contribution of this paper is that perhaps economic indicators are not as significant as they have
been portrayed. They seem to have very significant effects on the share of the popular vote (see
Fair 2009); however, this research indicates that their effects are less significant in actually
determining the winner of an election. The advantage that an incumbent has over a challenger is
usually large enough to overshadow economic conditions. As a result, this research provides
some justification of term-limits. Further research in this area should reinforce these findings.
(Roth, 2012)
Princeton economists Alan S. Blinder (formerly Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve
Board) and Mark W. Watson explains it in a more clear and understandable manner. In their
research, Presidents and the U.S. Economy: An Econometric Exploration they concluded that
presidential elections since World War Two operated within particular advantages and
disadvantages. Their study revealed that if a party governed during a period of an economic
downturn, it will impact their electability. Their research proved that despite the candidate's
35
Anthony Turner
Elections?
experience, knowledge, likeability, their campaign strategy or debating acumen; the state of the
economy will determine the outcome of who will hold the office. (Watson, 2014) Their study
specifically points out an interesting factor concerning the 2016 Presidential Election. They feel
that the state of the economy along with long-term wage stagnation that played an important
economic part in the 2014 midterms will play a major role in the outcome of the 2016 election.
They determined that the reason the democrats lost the 2014 midterm election was because,
Democrats failed to excite voter support, partly because average American workers had seen
little or no personal economic improvement in the years of the Obama presidency and
Democratic influence in Washington. (Watson, 2014) The effect of Citizens United on the
economics of the presidential election is again indirect. When the spending patterns by party are
examined we find that the GOP may have the slight advantage in the area of media,
communications and electioneering strategies instituted to sway or distort the vote. In 2014, the
GOP spent .85 Billion dollars compared to the Democrats .7 Billion dollars in party spending.
Again, this raises the question, Did Citizen United allowed spending by Super-Pacs, non-party
committees, undisclosed groups and electioneering expenditures affect the information enough to
change the vote? Seemingly, the data shows that it just might be affecting even the economics
of the election by enabling a well-prepared candidate to oppose the candidate of the governing
party by presenting information in a manner that skews the vote. (Open Secrets, 2015) If this
does not change the economy may not influence voters as much as special groups are able to
utilize Citizen United new privileges
Short Voter Attention Span
Then there is the short attention span of voters which is the most intrusive way Citizens
United utilizes funding in order to buy the vote. Princeton University political scientists Dr.
36
Anthony Turner
Elections?
Christopher Achen and Dr. Larry Bartels in Musical Chairs: Pocketbook Voting and the Limits
of Democratic Accountability," examines retrospective voting. Retrospective voting asserts that
While the voters may not be terribly well informed on issues, they recognize when things are
going bad and are prone to throw the rascals out on such occasions. (Achen, 2004) Dr. Achen
and Bartels findings conclude that voters cannot manage the task of competent retrospection.
They forget all about most previous experience with the incumbents and vote solely on how they
feel about the most recent months." As a result, governments are most often retained or removed
due to "unexpected misfortunes unrelated to their performance in office" or, worse, preelection pandering. (Achen, 2004) If this conclusion is true, then we must ask why voters are so
vulnerable to manipulation. In their research, "It Feels Like We're Thinking: The Rationalizing
Voter and Electoral Democracy," Achen and Bartels suggests that the short attention span is due
to the electorate's lack of education about the facts surrounding the issues causing knee-jerk
reactions to stimulus. They do not deny that the electorate is not doing their best to make sense
of a very complex system, however, they caution that "We merely wish to note that their best
should be troubling to enthusiasts of democracy." (Bartels C. H., 2006)
They examine this issue from two different perspectives. One, people make a snap
decision or rather exercise knee-jerk thinking not by reading the facts but by reading the faces of
the candidates. If the electorate perceives through the visual perception that a candidate is
competent, the voters tend to elect that candidate. Two, the electorate uses additional stimuli
such as facial structure and expressions to determine if the candidate is competent. So if your
facial features are acceptable to the electorate then you may just win. This gives Citizens United
and issue advocacy another advantage. Issue Advocacy gets attention because it is about message
quality and the electorate acceptability of the messenger delivering the message. Because of the
37
Anthony Turner
Elections?
high potency of the message along with the funding driving the message delivered by a
polarizing candidate or group; the information whether it is true, false or somewhere in between
the murky layering of information; the short memory of the voter will consume it and act upon it
without examining the validity of the message itself.
Causes of the Vanishing Voting Booth

Since 1960, the voting booth has been shrinking. Some say that the quest for the
American Dream caused by industrialization and the expansion of the labor market is causing
families stress forcing the need to vote to a lower position on the life priority scale. To put it in
context, voter turnout was 65 percent in 1960 and in the 2002 midterm it had declined to 39
percent. (Federal Election Commission, 2014) In primary elections, the turnout rate used to be
nearly 35 percent in 1970 but it has also fallen to 18 percent as of 2002. Another indicator of the
Vanishing Voting Booth is not just the lack of interest in political campaigns but also one must
remember as Dr. Putman stressed in his research, the declining social capital was due to the
introduction of television or as we call it today technology. (Putnam, 1995) In 1960, 60 percent
of the populace was tuned to the television set staying abreast of the political movement. Today,
less than 30 percent tuned into presidential campaigns as of 2000. Also, in the 1970s one in
three taxpayers checked the donation box on their returns for funding campaigns; by 1990 less
than one in five checked that same box. Now that number is one in eight. (Patterson, 2002)
Currently, voter turnout dipped from 62.3 percent of eligible citizens voting in 2008 to an
estimated 57.5 in 2012. That figure was also below the 60.4 level of the 2004 election but higher
than the 54.2 percent turnout in the 2000 election. (Bipartisan Policy Center, 2012)
38
Anthony Turner
Elections?
Despite an increase of over eight million citizens in the eligible population, turnout
declined from 131 million voters in 2008 to an estimated 126 million voters in 2012 when all
ballots are tallied. Some 93 million eligible citizens did not vote. So, even with an uptick in voter
turnout, the youth has stayed away from the polls along with working families. The consistent
voter yet remains the senior vote.
So what is happening here? What is causing the disappearing act of the voting booth?
Why is the electorate disinterested in their civic duties? Better yet, Why is the U.S. Electorate
running away from the voting booth never to look back? Is it because the baby boomers were
more civic-minded after experiencing the depression with their parents and World War Two? Or,
is it the idea that the generations Xers and the generation Ys has never experienced a crisis and
are more private and frustrated with an unresponsive government that seemingly tends to cater to
the needs of the rich, affluent and big business? To better understand the relationship being
established and strained by Citizens United; the next sections will examine two important
influences that may be causing the Vanishing Voting Booth.
Invisible Primary
One of the biggest changes with Citizens United is the need to consume money. Mimi
Murray Digby Marziani in her research, Money in Politics After Citizens United: Troubling
Trends & Possible Solutions said the following which really explains why the invisible primary
is now so important. In one swift stroke, the Court overturned at least twenty years of its own
precedent, rendered unconstitutional more than sixty years of federal law restricting corporate
electioneering expenditures, and annihilated the statutes of twenty-two states that previously
prohibited election spending from corporate general treasury funds. Citizens United also ignited
widespread popular, academic and political discussion about money, politics, and the
39
Anthony Turner
Elections?
Constitution. It opened the door to Super-Pacs, Secret Money and started the demise of
Presidential public funding and allowed big businesses and undisclosed donors to pour limitless
amounts into nonprofits to influence, electioneer and change the vote in their favor. (Marziani,
2012)
The competition begins in the Invisible Primary, the very early stage of the Presidential
nomination process where there are no television and media ads; only the process of posturing
and hob-knobbing with those that control the purse-strings in the ever growing and powerful
Citizens United benefactors. The New York Times outlines a very clear road map of how this
unseen primary works and how it benefits those seeking money from the new power-brokers.
Four years ago on July 5, the Republican Tim Pawlenty aired his first campaign ad. Mitt Romney
waited until November 22, 2011, to air his first campaign ad; only six weeks before the Iowa
caucus. (Note the short voter attention span) So the question to be asked is, Why the wait? The
answer is very clear, Citizens United. Citizens United established the Super-Pacs and before
Citizens United, funding for ads came mainly from the campaign funds raised. Now, candidates
are busy courting those that are affiliated with the Super-Pacs and are waiting on those funding
stream to open up. Super Pacs can raise any amount of money from donors while campaign
committees are currently capped at $2700 per person for the primaries. So it is now easier and
more lucrative to raise money through Super Pacs than through traditional means. So we will
wait. This represents a huge change from the 2008 Presidential Campaign where President
Obama raised $25 million by the end of March 2007 compared to Governor Romney who had
raised $21 million. Today in contrast to the 2008 Presidential primary before Citizen United; no
current high-profile candidate has even filed a statement of candidacy with the FEC. (Willis,
2015)
40
Anthony Turner
Elections?
Political scientists Marty Cohen, David Karol, Hans Noel, and John Zaller simplified the
meaning of the invisible primary best in their book, The Party Decides, a 2008 book arguing
for the centrality of the invisible primary in the nominations process with the following. They
said, The invisible primary is essentially a long-running national conversation among members
of each party coalition about who can best unite the party and win the next presidential election.
These insider conversations are with the potential candidates and party insiders, elected officials,
donors, interest groups, activists, and political staffers; who are attempting to individually decide
who they want their nominee to be, and often to coordinate with others in the party. These
insider deliberations take place in private conversations with each other and with the potential
candidates, and eventually in public declarations of who they're choosing to endorse, donate to,
or work for. These people who have a stake in the outcome arent going to just let it play out.
Theyre going to try to rig it in their favor," (Marty Cohen, 2008) This has all happened without
any input from those that matter, the electorate.
The Primary, States holding earlier and earlier primaries
Before any U.S. citizens can cast a vote in the November 6 General election, the field has
to be narrowed. Starting with the Invisible Primary, then the Iowa Caucuses, the primaries
must be conducted in all 50 states. The candidates in the primaries have garnered enough
political and economic support to pass the invisible primary and now begin the showcase. The
Primary is an election that is organized by the two main parties of every state and is intended to
give the states delegates an opportunity to choose by vote who will be their candidate for the
President of the United States of America. Usually, primary elections are a closed election which
means that if you are not a registered member of the party you belong to; you cannot vote on the
nomination.
41
Anthony Turner
Elections?
Lately, the trending is that more and more states are moving their primaries up earlier and
earlier. Currently, 46 states in the Union have moved their primaries up in order to compete with
Iowa and pre-empt other early voting primary states. This is presumably done to take advantage
of campaign spending trends that have emerged since Super-Pacs has emerged. Primaries are
now competing for funding from these sources to support their candidates because parties are yet
limited by how much they can receive from sources. The only draw-back to this front-loading
method is the penalties imposed by moving the primaries to an earlier date. Currently, the
penalties for states moving their primaries in January and February will be stiffer than times past.
These states can lose half of their delegates and in some cases, they will now lose even more.
States with at least 30 delegates would be left with just 12 representatives at their state's
convention and states with less than 30 would end up with only 9 delegates. Why? The scramble
for Super-Pac money and the influence of that money is creating a mad move to have the
advantage over the opposing party in the money game. This is the same money game that
Citizens United created by allowing the influence of money in electioneering, media and vote
peddling; all of which are effective tools when you are dealing with an electorate with a short
attention span.
Looking ahead to the 2016 Presidential campaign which is underway, campaign-finance
watchdog groups say the proliferation of committees that can raise unlimited funds demonstrate
that campaign rules have been bent beyond recognition. Fred Wertheimer, president of
Democracy 21, which has filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission over the
fundraising practices of four presidential hopefuls had the following to say concerning money
and the primaries. This is what happens when billionaires decide they want to play in the
sandbox of American politics; we are being driven to a system of no contributions limits, and,
42
Anthony Turner
Elections?
therefore, a completely corrupt system that's going to finance the 2016 presidential election."
(Schouten, 2015) In the void of a lack of established and published rules from the IRS, the 2016
Presidential Election will be a perfect example of the influence that money has on the electoral
process.
Campaign Financing, Citizens United Example of Campaign Finance Reform?

Rich people do not just stumble upon their huge amounts of wealth by throwing it away,
giving it away or investing in lost causes. These rich people who are usually the insiders and the
party elites invest their money into campaigns for one reason only, To receive an ROI (Return
on Investment) from cash invested in an investment vehicle; the Presidential campaign. This
should not surprise any of us. They understand that money buys votes, that money buys the best
political engineers, marketers, public relations staff, messaging engineers, the best linguist, etc.
The over-abundance of having the most campaign cash buys the best access and gives them the
most access to influence legislation and policy. The 2012 Presidential race proved this point
exactly. President Obama appointed over 30% of diplomatic positions to donors. Pennsylvania
State University professors Johannes W. Fedderke and Dennis C. Jett, both professors of
international relations at Pennsylvania State University computed theoretical prices for
different postings. In their research titled, What Price the Court of St. Jamess? Political
Influences on Ambassadorial Postings of the United States of America looks at diplomatic
appointments in the Obama administration through January 2011. Dr. Fedderke and Dr. Jett
theorize that the most desirable postings are those to countries that are not obscure, dangerous,
poor or of low interest to tourists. Where political campaign contributions (financial or
otherwise) exercise an influence on the nature of posting received, the desirability of a posting
43
Anthony Turner
Elections?
should correspond to the size of the campaign contribution. (Jett, 2012) Even after the
Presidential campaign is over money is still buying power, influence and the control and
interpretation of the policy. In the study Professors, Fedderke and Jett found the controlling
influence of campaign contributions determined the cost of ambassadorships. Their research
revealed that political ambassadors who had made campaign donations of $550,000, or bundled
contributions of $750,000, had a 90 percent chance of being posted to a country in Western
Europe. Their research further revealed the following. When isolating a countrys wealth over
other factors, Luxembourg came in at the top of the chart, with a posting there valued at $3.1
million in direct contributions, while an appointment to Portugal was predicted to have a value of
$602,686 in personal contributions. The model suggests that bundlers can get the same posts for
less: Portugal was valued at about $341,160 in bundled contributions, Luxembourg at $1.8
million.
When factoring in a countrys tourist trade, however, France and Monaco top the list, with the
level of personal contributions at $6.2 million and bundled contributions at $4.4 million.
(Confessore, 2013). Again, Citizens United created loopholes for the rich, elite and wealthy to
circumvent a government for and by the people in order to purchase and buy policy influence
even after the Presidential election is over by using Bundling. Bundling is the practice through
which multiple contributions from a single industry, interest group, company or group of
individuals are delivered to a candidate. Bundling is a legal practice that can occur one of two
ways: 1) an individual or group, known as a conduit or bundler, collects and delivers the
contributions in a bundle to a candidate (in some cases, the conduit must report bundled
contributions to the Federal Election Commission), or 2) individuals from the same industry,
interest group or company send contributions that reach a candidate around the same time. In
44
Anthony Turner
Elections?
these cases, the person or group who solicited the contributions (the bundler) is often given an
identification code that the contributors put on their checks so he gets the credit for bringing in
the contributions (OpenSecrets, 2012).
Companies, industries, and interest groups organize "bundles" of contributions in order to
take credit for a total amount greatly exceeding what could be given by an individual or PAC.
This gives them much greater impact than a trickle of apparently unrelated individual checks.
Examples of conduit groups that bundle political contributions of like-minded donors include
ActBlue (for Democratic causes), EMILY's List (for pro-choice female Democratic causes) and
Club for Growth (for conservative causes). (OpenSecrets, 2012) Again, money is the number one
priority of the power and policy brokers.
So while the electorate continuously hear about wedge issues that dont represent the
centrist ideology of the electorate in the campaigns, the fact of the matter is that the types of
issues that do matter to those in the middle does not matter to those that are investing in buying
the vote (Pope, 2010). This vote buying in campaign finance under Citizens United, alienates
those whose votes really matter. The demographical and economic groups that lack campaign
cash and influence do not get their issues talked about in a Presidential race. We do not hear
about issues such as blight in Latino and Black neighborhoods or the issues surrounding poverty
and joblessness. The middle of the road issues is very rarely discussed in depth. The people
suffering within these issues do not have cash and thus, have no seat at the table. When Justice
John Roberts quotes the Citizens United ruling as campaign reform, he framed it as follows. He
said, The ruling was about ingratiation and access not corruption (McCutcheon v. Federal
Election Commission, 2014). This was a disingenuous characterization of the ruling and was an
intentionally misleading narrowly defined definition of the core of the Courts decision. The
45
Anthony Turner
Elections?
Citizens United decision was intrinsically about allowing corporations to have free speech with
the clear understanding that corporations only speaks with cash; which in this context is
corrupting. In the interview with Senators McCain and Feingold, they illuminated this unspoken
issues and put it for all that is willing to hear and listen. Senator McCain expressed his concern
about unlimited cash being infused into a campaign as follows. he stated, because the
complete naivet ass, displayed by some of these justices, particularly Scalia, with his sarcasm,
and the questions they asked, showed they had that, not the slightest clue as to what a political
campaign is all about, and the role of money that it plays in political campaigns (Feingold S.
J., 2012). Then the Senator continues on to say, One of the problems that Russ and I ran into
from the beginning, and that is a Federal Election Commission, which is a joke. They're the only
commission where there's not an odd number (Feingold S. J., 2012). This very descriptively
frames how important money is to a campaign and how unscrupulous the system has become and
basically how corrupted even the Justices of our highest Court has turned a tainted blind eye and
allowed not only unlimited corporate cash into the election system but now our National enemy
China is investing in our political campaign. And still, the electorate just cant accept that
Cash is King in this new American political campaign for the White House and now all other
races around our Country.
This new trajectory will lead to more vote engineering and buying and will further
distance the electorate that is not elite from what President Lincoln coined in his Gettysburg
address, ...a government of, by, and for the people... Elections are now far from the intended
system of participatory engagement. Senator Feingold put it this way, We had a system in place
where there weren't unlimited contributionsThere were not these unlimited contributions. It's
only, as John has said, because the Supreme Court went out of its way and some people went out
46
Anthony Turner
Elections?
of their way, to gut the system through the Supreme Court we got bigger problems than
campaign finance. We no longer have a system of law in this country if the Supreme Court can
pull stunts like this. So I think we're onto a higher plane of frustration than just campaign
finance (Feingold S. J., 2012). So, today, in light of these recent developments, people still do
get a vote. However, they only get a vote after big corporations, party insiders, the elite and the
affluent have decided whom and what they can vote for and what the policy outlay will be. This
has resulted in a plutocracy that operates on the premise of the golden rule, the ones that have
the goldRULES. Citizens United is a miscarriage of Justice. As the motto of the Medici
family of Italy went, Money to get power, power to protect money (Loewentheil, 2013).
Super Pacs
In order to be fair to Citizens United, it did not directly create Super-Pacs. The Court
ruling in the case determined that corporations are people and have the same right to engage in
spending just like natural human beings. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled further that as long as
the unlimited money is not directly coordinated with a candidates campaign it is permissible.
Then the FEC ruled that there is no reason to impose anti-corruption rules and limitations as long
as there is no coordination. After those determinations, the Super-Pacs all declared their
independence from candidates and the money race began and Super-Pacs were born. (Marziani,
2012)
Super Pacs emerged after Citizens United as the pre-imminent post-Citizens United
Development to have a major effect on the Presidential Campaign. Regular PACS have existed
for a long time but Super PACS are a mutant derivative of the traditional PAC. Before the
emergence of Super PACS, PACS could only accept contributions up to $5000 from a person.
Super Pac's emergence brought with it the ability to raise and spend unlimited amounts of money
47
Anthony Turner
Elections?
from unions and corporations and also individuals to spend on political advertisements as long as
there is no coordination with any candidate.
Even though the Court tried to minimize the effects of corruption in its ruling, Mimi
Murray Digby Marziani in her report Money in Politics after Citizens United: Troubling Trends
& Possible Solutions had this to say. She said, Contrary to the Supreme Courts assumption,
there is no reason to believe that independent spending benefiting a candidate is, in fact, less
likely to lead to corruption than direct contributions. After all, political candidates want to win.
From the perspective of Newt Gingrich, it makes little difference whether Sheldon Adelson
spends millions on supportive campaign advertisements rather than donating that money directly
to the campaign, Gingrich will simply consider whether the money helped his efforts. If the
money was valuable to the campaign (and in Gingrichs case, it was essential), Adelson would
be treated no differently than someone who had donated millions directly to Gingrichs
campaign committee. Except that, it is illegal to make million-dollar contributions directly. She
continues by summing the point up with the following. To make matters worse, the definition of
coordination under federal campaign finance law allows a considerable amount of cooperation
between a candidate and his or her nominally independent supporters. (This is largely the result
of the FECs dysfunction). Thus, for instance, members of President Barack Obamas cabinet
have appeared at fundraisers for Priorities USA Action, a Super PAC that is supporting Obamas
re-election; to help raise money for pro-Obama campaign ads, without technically violating any
coordination rules. Mitt Romneys campaign and his Super PAC, Restore Our Future, retain the
same political consulting firm and have hired the same event-planning company, rented rooms in
the same hotel, and depended heavily upon the same New York City fundraisersagain, all
while remaining independent under the law.
48
Anthony Turner
Elections?
In terms of money when 2010 is compared with the Super Pacs of 2014. There is a huge
disparity in the amounts collected and spent in just 4 years which causes pause as to how much
we are willing to spend to get our candidate into the White House? In 2010, 83 groups organized
as Super PACs have reported total receipts of $89,179,293 and total independent expenditures of
$62,641,448 in the 2010 cycle. Then in 2014, 1,360 groups organized as Super PACs have
reported total receipts of $696,011,919 and total independent expenditures of $346,874,537 in
the 2014 cycle. (OpenSecrets, 2015) When framed in that perspective, Citizens United has made
cash, King.
Dark Money/Secret Money
Again, the U.S. Supreme Court got it wrong. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld campaign
finance disclosure requirements because they assumed that federal law mandated a prompt
disclosure that would keep the electorate informed about decisions and where and from whom
money was coming from. Federal law does require advertisers to file a disclosure once spending
exceeds $10,000 but existing regulations undermine the ability to regulate those restrictions
severely. Specifically, the FEC rules, in fact, allow political spenders to withhold all
information about the underlying source of funds unless contributors expressly indicate that their
donations were given to further a particular ad. Not surprisingly, donations are rarely earmarked
in this manner, and savvy donors understand that it is easy to contribute major support for
electioneering while keeping their identitiesand the amount of their donationshielded from
public knowledge. Thus, certain politically-active nonprofits that are under no other obligation to
disclose their supporters can permanently shield the sources of their funding from public
scrutiny. Now, these dark groups are enthusiastically taking advantage of political donors
desire for secrecy, and playing a larger role in federal elections than ever before. (Marziani,
49
Anthony Turner
Elections?
2012) With the lack of transparency, Citizen United has opened the bidding war for the White
House.
50
Anthony Turner
Elections?
Media
While there may not be a price tag on the White House specifically, media has played a
huge part in the bidding war. The media has been instrumental on both sides of the argument and
according to Media Matters, while media is raking in the money to support its media consultants,
media attorneys and the media in general; it is also looking out for itself by hindering progress to
fix the system. Media Matters pointed out five important factors that media could have given
coverage to that could have influenced changes in the current laws and regulations after Citizens
United. One, media ignored the ramifications on campaign finance. In the run up to Citizens
United sequel, McCutcheon, PBS News hour covered campaign finance reform more than all
other news networks combined. Two, media ignored the connection between Citizens United and
its sequel. While Citizens United established corporate personhood, McCutcheon went further in
deregulating money in politics by abolishing aggregate individual limitations. News networks
mostly failed to notice. Three, media ignored the connection between Citizens United and Hobby
Lobby. Hobby Lobby took the personhood concept and applied it to health care. Four, media
ignored the latest campaign finance case, Williams Yulee. This pending case would extend
Citizens United to judicial elections, but news media has mentioned it only once. (Media
Matters, 2015)
Media has become the auctioneer in the bidding war for the White House. In the 2012
election, President Obama and Mitt Romney spent a combined $896 million on TV ads. The
2014 election at midterm was 70 percent higher. This bidding war is adding up to billions in the
pockets of media which makes media a major bedfellow in the Citizens United raping of the
political election process. (OpenSecrets, 2012) The Supreme Court ruled in favor of free speech
for everyone including big business; but actually who is really benefiting and leading the bidding
51
Anthony Turner
Elections?
war? Media is because the more money that is raised, the more money there is that will be spent
on media advertising.
Conclusion
After an exhaustive review and study of all the major factors involved, the research
shows that the White House is not for sale. Yet there is a fire sale happening in the form a
bidding war over who gets the money and who spends it. Citizens United has opened the
floodgates of undue influence by insiders and the affluent to be able to shape the candidates and
the message by manipulating the process. When money, unlimited and untraceable money is
infused into the system without rigorous restrictions and oversight, corruption begins. Still, there
is no magic bullet to remedy this growing problem. The Internal Revenue Service is working
feverishly to put rules and regulations in place, but after their zealous pursuit of GOP nonprofits,
even they have become gun-shy and unfortunately; rules will not be in place by the 2016
election.
There is some common sense reform that the nations and its representative can undertake.
One, enhance disclosure. The Disclose Act of 2012 is slumbering in Congress. If passed it
would:
Expand current reporting requirements to capture any outside person or organization that
spends substantial amounts of money on campaign advertising, either directly or by
transferring money to another;
Accelerate the timetable for reporting such spending; and
Enhance current disclaimer requirements to provide more information on the face of

campaign advertisements.
52
Anthony Turner
Elections?
Two, tighten & enforce coordination rules. Lawmakers can demand and legislate true
independence between Super Pacs and candidate campaigns which would mitigate influence and
corruption. We must do everything possible to eliminate the invisible primary and undue
influence by power-brokers. These anti-corruption laws could be aggressively enforced in the
same manner that the Securities and Exchange Commission enforces the insider trading rules.
Three, reform and expand public funding. This would at least give the electorate a
guaranteed voice in the process and fundamentally change the role of money in politics. Such a
reform must be a systematic reform that would allow candidates to rely on the American voter
for the resources needed to communicate their message during the campaign. This alternative
would also cause candidate through small donor public financing to focus on donations from
their constituents instead of big corporations and the affluent. Public financing would definitely
enhance voter participation and reduce the influences of special interest. (Marziani, 2012)
53
Anthony Turner
Elections?
Bibliography
Atkinson, M. D. (n.d.). The Effect of Social Capital on Voter Turnout. Los Angeles: University of California,
Los Angeles .
Bartels, L. (2008). Economic Inequality and Po litical Representation. In L. Bartels, Unequal Democracy
(pp. 252-282). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Bartels, L. (2008). The Guilded Age. Princeton University Press, 1-28.
Boaz, D. (2013). Dollars Per Vote in the Presidential Election. Washington D.C.: CATO Institute.
Brader, T. (2005). Striking a Responsive Chord: How Political Ads Motivate and Persuade Voters by
Appealing to Emotions. American Journal of Political Science,, 388-405.
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 08-205 (Supreme Court of the United States of America
January 21, 2010).
Condon, M. (2009). The Effect of Social Capital on Voter Turnout: A Field Experiment in Two
Southwestern Cities. Madison: University of Wisconsin.
Confessore, N. (2013, January 13). Study Puts Cost to Landing Embassy Post. Politics. New York, New
York, U.S.A.: The New York Times.
Dingfelder, S. (2012). The Science of Political Advertising. Washington D.C.: American Psychological
Association.
Donald, B. (2012). Stanford Scholars Examine Big Money's Influence on Elections. Stanford: Stanford
News.
Dowdle, R. E. (2002). The Money Primary: What Influences the Outcome of Pre-Primary Presidential
Nominating Fundraising. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 256-273.
Drutman, L. (2012). Did Campaign Spending Buy Bush the 2000 and 2004 Elections? Washington D.C.:
The Sunlight Foundation.
Federal Election Commission. (2014). Federal Election Commission. Retrieved from Campaign Finance
Disclosure Portal: http://www.fec.gov/
Feingold, J. M. (2012, March 15). This American Life Interview. (A. B. Andrea Seabrook, Interviewer)
Feingold, S. J. (2012, 3 15). (N. c. Andrea Seabrook, T. A.-c. Alex Blumberg, & T. A. Ben Calhoun,
Interviewers)
54
Anthony Turner
Elections?
First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts 1978).
Gerken, D. H. (2014). The Real Problem with Citizens United: Campaign Finance, Dark Money, and
Shadow Politics. Marquette: Marquette Lawyer.
Gross, K. E. (2007). Democratization Effects of Campaign Contribution Limits in Gubernatorial Elections.
PARTY POLITICS.
Gussin, M. A. (2005). Issue Bias: How Issue Coverage and Media Bias Affect Voter Perceptions of
Elections. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles Department of Political Science.
Jaobsen, G. C. (2013). The Politics of Congressional Elections. New Jersey: Pearson.
Jewler, S. (2013). The Dark Side of Citizens United. Washington D.C.: Public Citizens Congress Watch.
Jr., V. K. (1955). A Theory of Critical Elections. The Journal of Politics, 3-18.
Lau, R. R. (2006). How Voters Decide: Information Processing in Election Campaigns (Cambridge Studies
in Public Opinion and Political Psychology). Cambridge.
Lioz, B. B. (2013). Billion Dollar Democracy, The Unprecedented Role of Money in the 2012 Elections. New
York: Demos and U.S. PIRG Education Fund.
Loewentheil, J. S. (2013). How Big Money Corrupts the Economy. Democracy: A Journal of Ideas.
M.Cohen, D. K. (2008). The Party Decides: Presidential Nominations Before and After Reform. Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press.
McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, Supreme Court (12-536) (U.S. Supreme Court April 2,
2014).
Micheal M. Franz, B. C. (2010). The Citizens United Election? or Same A It Ever Was? The Forum, 1-24.
OpenSecrets. (2012). Retrieved from OpenSecrets.org: https://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/#out
Panagopoulos, C. (2012). Strategy, Money and Technology in the 2008 Presidential Election. Oxford:
Taylor and Francis.
Pope, M. P. (2010). Culture War: The Myth of a Polarized America. Longman; 3rd edition.
Prokop, A. (2014). 40 Charts That Explain Money in Politics. Vox Media, Inc.
Putnam, R. D. (1995). Tuning In, Tuning Out: The Strange Disappearance of Social Capital in America.
Political Science and Politics, 664-682.
Richey, S. (2012). Random and Systematic Error in Voting in Presidential Elections. Political Research
Quarterly, 1-13.
55
Anthony Turner
Elections?
Ridout, M. M. (2010). Political Advertising and Persuasion in the 2004 and 2008 Presidential Elections.
American Politics Research, 304-327.
Smith, T. (2001). Race and Money in Politcs. North Carolina Law Review, 1477-1522.
Steve Rabinowitz, M. D. (2000). 2000 Presidential Race First In Modern History Where Political Parties
Spend More On TV Ads Than Candidates. New York: Brennan Center fro Justice at New York
University School of law.
Stratmann, T. (2005). Some talk: Money in politics. A (partial) review of the literature. Fairfax:
Department of Economics, George Mason University.
The United States of America. (1999, October). Congressional Record. Proceedings and debate of the
106th Congress - First Session/Volume 145 Part 18. Washington D.C., U.S.A.: U.S. Congress.
United States of America. (2000, June 20). House Committee on Ways and Means. Hearing on Disclosure
of Political Activities of Tax-Exempt Organizations. Washington D.C., USA: U.S. House of
Representatives.
Wayne, S. J. (2004). Is This the Way to Run a Democratic Government? . Washington D.C.: Georgetown
University Press.
Wilcox, L. W. (2010). Money and American Elections. Oxford HandBook Online, 1-15.
Wright, J. S. (2014). Money and the Pollution of Politics: Is the First Amendment an Obstacle to Political
Equality? Columbia Law Review Association, Inc., 609-645.
56
Anthony Turner

The Vanishing Voting Booth Citizens United The Wholesale Purchase of The Presidential Elections

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

The Vanishing Voting Booth Citizens United The Wholesale Purchase of The Presidential Elections

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

The Vanishing Voting Booth: Citizens United, The Wholesale Purchase of the Presidential

Historical Background of Money and Elections

The Historical Economics of Elections

The Electoral Process Equation

Introducing Citizens United

Why this Research is Important

Explaining the Vanishing Voting Booth The human capacity

The Bush Campaign

The Obama Campaign

Voting Trends 1996 thru 2012(Including race and age)

Citizens Voting Mobility

Economy and the Elections

Short Voter Attention Span

Causes of the Vanishing Voting Booth

The Primary, States holding earlier and earlier primaries

Campaign Financing, Citizens United Example of Campaign Finance Reform?

Dark Money/Secret Money

Historical Background of Money and Elections

The Historical Economics of Elections

Introducing Citizens United

Why this Research is Important

Explaining the Vanishing Voting Booth The human capacity

Voting Trends 1996 thru 2012(Including race and age)

Causes of the Vanishing Voting Booth

Campaign Financing, Citizens United Example of Campaign Finance Reform?

Accelerate the timetable for reporting such spending; and

Enhance current disclaimer requirements to provide more information on the face of

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi