Edited by Audrey Agot
Follow the Money
“Follow the money.” That was the pivotal clue that journalist Bob Woodward of the Washington Post received 40 years ago in the shadows of an abandoned parking garage in Rosslyn, VA. “Deep Throat” was the anonymous source that allowed Woodward to concentrate on the relevant information in order to reveal the story of Watergate, which ended the presidency of Richard Nixon. We had to wait 33 years, until 2005, in order to learn his secret identity: Mark Felt, the FBI’s second-in-command during those years.
In the context of the United States’ presidential elections today, money continues to be key. In Jan. 2010, the Supreme Court’s decision in “Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission” lifted various restrictions regarding political donations from private companies. Since then, the decision has provoked the emergence of more and more organizations—outside of the political parties—that pay enormous sums to support or attack a candidate. With the formation of groups that parallel the campaign companies (called Super Political Action Committees or Super PACs), money flows freely without excessive transparency and under some supposedly restraining regulations (e.g. it is not possible for the companies to collaborate with the candidates) that already have been proved useless. Currently, Super PACs are not obligated to reveal their identity to their donors. Obama’s campaign has already raised more than $140 million, which is much more than what his Republican rivals have raised altogether. However, the Super PACs supporting the conservative candidates have provided $34 million, compared to President Obama’s $4.2 million.
Therefore, it is in the sphere of Republican influence where more PACs are found, highlighted by American Crossroads, an anti-Democratic organization established by Karl Rove, the political “guru” of the Republican campaigns. Because of the invested money, these external groups possess media dominance. For example, during the Nov. 2010 elections, American Crossroads invested a total of more than $65 million in anti-Democratic advertising (in addition to the publicity given to the Republican party in favor of their candidates and the money available to each candidate) in the media, especially on television, where the election was discussed most.
In Mitt Romney’s case, the PACs fell over to help him when he became the only Republican candidate remaining. The aforementioned American Crossroads is the most significant, with $25 million estimated for now. But many others exist as well, including Americans for Prosperity and Restore Our Future (supported by the Eurovegas tycoon, Sheldon Anderson). Their objective is to produce a harsh campaign against Obama, rather than one in favor of Romney. The same occurs with Obama’s campaign, whose PACs attack Romney ruthlessly, including the PACs Priorities USA Action and USA Action.
As we can see, these groups use their money and influence in order to propel negative campaigns against one candidate or the other, and this electoral campaign is becoming one of the dirtiest in history. The attacks are mainly produced in videos first uploaded to YouTube and social networks and immediately played on television, especially in the swing states (the states that will determine the electoral contest).
Money has become the most significant factor. The possibility of investing enormous amounts of resources without limit and practically without a trail has made the competition move from the candidates’ field of play to that of the investors–from the parties to the lobbyists, from ideas to dollars. Obama can fail politically if he fails as a fundraiser. That’s the way things are. Once again, they follow the money.
In the context of the United States’ presidential elections today, money continues to be key. In Jan. 2010, the Supreme Court’s decision in “Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission” lifted various restrictions regarding political donations from private companies. Since then, the decision has provoked the emergence of more and more organizations—outside of the political parties—that pay enormous sums to support or attack a candidate. With the formation of groups that parallel the campaign companies (called Super Political Action Committees or Super PACs), money flows freely without excessive transparency and under some supposedly restraining regulations (e.g. it is not possible for the companies to collaborate with the candidates) that already have been proved useless. Currently, Super PACs are not obligated to reveal their identity to their donors. Obama’s campaign has already raised more than $140 million, which is much more than what his Republican rivals have raised altogether. However, the Super PACs supporting the conservative candidates have provided $34 million, compared to President Obama’s $4.2 million.
Therefore, it is in the sphere of Republican influence where more PACs are found, highlighted by American Crossroads, an anti-Democratic organization established by Karl Rove, the political “guru” of the Republican campaigns. Because of the invested money, these external groups possess media dominance. For example, during the Nov. 2010 elections, American Crossroads invested a total of more than $65 million in anti-Democratic advertising (in addition to the publicity given to the Republican party in favor of their candidates and the money available to each candidate) in the media, especially on television, where the election was discussed most.
In Mitt Romney’s case, the PACs fell over to help him when he became the only Republican candidate remaining. The aforementioned American Crossroads is the most significant, with $25 million estimated for now. But many others exist as well, including Americans for Prosperity and Restore Our Future (supported by the Eurovegas tycoon, Sheldon Anderson). Their objective is to produce a harsh campaign against Obama, rather than one in favor of Romney. The same occurs with Obama’s campaign, whose PACs attack Romney ruthlessly, including the PACs Priorities USA Action and USA Action.
As we can see, these groups use their money and influence in order to propel negative campaigns against one candidate or the other, and this electoral campaign is becoming one of the dirtiest in history. The attacks are mainly produced in videos first uploaded to YouTube and social networks and immediately played on television, especially in the swing states (the states that will determine the electoral contest).
Money has become the most significant factor. The possibility of investing enormous amounts of resources without limit and practically without a trail has made the competition move from the candidates’ field of play to that of the investors–from the parties to the lobbyists, from ideas to dollars. Obama can fail politically if he fails as a fundraiser. That’s the way things are. Once again, they follow the money.