Republicans Outspend Democrats in Most Expensive Midterms Ever

[TomCADem]

Source: Newsweek

Nearly $4 billion will have been spent on this year’s midterm elections, a staggering figure that makes them the most expensive midterm elections in U.S. history, and $333 million more than the 2010 midterms. The Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) estimates the candidates and parties will have spent around $2.7 billion, while outside groups funding candidates will likely spend $900 million, a total of $3.67 billion.

Republican candidates and right-leaning outside groups will have spent more money than Democrats and liberal-leaning groups, at $1.92 billion for the GOP compared to the Democrats’ $1.76 billion, CRP predicts. But despite the billions spent to woo voters, midterms have a historically low voter turnout compared to presidential elections. The Pew Research Center predicts it will be no different this year, with less than half of eligible voters likely to get to the polls.

The 2010 Citizens United ruling, the Supreme Court decision that paved the way for corporations to donate unrestricted funding to candidates, has had a profound effect on the huge sums spent on elections and is "directly traceable" to the spike in spending, Lawrence Norden, a deputy director for New York University's Brennan Center for Justice, told ABC News. Both Super PACS and more elusive "dark money" groups, which are classified as non-profit organizations and don't have to send their donor lists to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), have benefited from Citizens United. This year, dark money groups have spent $200 million in 11 of the most competitive Senate races, nearly double the amount they forked out in 2012, ABC News reports.

Read more: http://www.newsweek.com/republicans-outspend-democrats-most-expensive-midterms-ever-282154

---

The most money spent on a low turnout President lame duck midterm. I can only imagine how much money will be funneled into the 2016 elections. If you counted Fox News as a 24/7 in kind contribution to the GOP, it will easily be in the billions.

[C Moon]

1. Well, at least this will trickle down...in theory.

[jtuck004]

2. What Americans could have bought instead of a $4 billion election.

...
Four billion bucks is a boatload of cash. It's 10 times more than the government has committed to fighting Ebola in West Africa and would be enough to build 100 treatment centers and run them for years.

That kind of money could also buy 25 F-18 fighter jets, pay for more than 12,000 students' K-12 education and have enough left over to produce a summer blockbuster.

Or, maybe it makes more sense to think about elections for what they are - glorified marketing campaigns. It took Apple, the world's most valuable company, the last four years or so to spend four billion advertising dollars.

Now, with some sense of the scale for the cash being thrown around, let's take a look at how it's being spent to influence how voters think about this election.
...

Here.

Could invest in ourselves instead...

[angrychair]

3. All hail our corporate masters! NT.

[JonLP24]

4. I'm sure they feel it was money well spent

Considering the profits they'll see if elections go in their favor.

Wealth disparity is the only reason why Republicans are still relevant. Take this for example--There was a leaked memo in the 90s advising GOP strategy to deny global warming claims and find scientists sympathetic to this view. This is a fact but I still run into people mocking global warming, implying they believe they're false & judging by the tone, ridiculous.

Even today I still run into deniers despite the scientific consensus & evidence of memos & funding for political strategy to be contrary continues to evolve.

Sarah Palin in the Katie Couric interview she was asked if she felt global warming was man made, she didn't stumble or pause and pointed out she is in Alaska and it was clear to her that it was man-made but suggested that it doesn't matter at this point but that it is real and something needs to be done about it which was I felt was a good answer. You can easily measure the methane coming from the ground in Alaska, I doubt anyone honestly doubts the science behind global warming in Alaska.

Fast-forward to the debate where she is more polished & prepared (but came off worse & far more dishonest with the "let's talk about taxes" instead of answering McCain's history of supporting deregulation that led to the financial collapse) was asked the very same question and stumbled badly by not even answering or even using the "it is real and something needs to be done" answer.

Clearly, it shows the campaign strategy influence on the answer as there was a big push on the "man-made" angle but it is interesting when you think about why. On one hand, appealing to voters who bought into the nonsense while simultaneously pushing the nonsense.

Now, after the evidence keeps on stacking, now Repulicans just say "I'm not a scientist" when the topic comes up.

This is just where one policy area has seen big money, manufactured talking points, & scientists pressured to agree with them.

If general public had an awareness of what the facts actually are not on just this issue but all of them, Republicans would be marginal. Think about working class folks buying into global warming denial, it doesn't hurt them if it is real but it helps big polluting businesses that they believe it isn't real to avoid the expected legislation to curb the effects.

[Odin2005]

5. So much for all the right-wing morons on Reddit saying the exact opposite.

[Dustlawyer]

6. I wish AMERICANS would wake up to the fact that we NEED PUBLICLY FUNDED ELECTIONS!!!

They do not spend 4 billion without assurances that these politicians will do what they are paying them to do. We no longer have Representative Democracy, politicians represent donors instead! The only way to fix this country is to take the money out of the elections and stop voting for corporate candidates, Republican or Democrat.

We need Bernie Sanders!!!!!!!!

[tclambert]

7. But Republicans like it the way it is.

Publicly funded elections might be fair and candidates wouldn't owe favors to wealthy contributors, two things Republicans actively oppose.

[sammy750]

8. The Koch brothers won the election and can now rule the nation

with the support of the GOP. It will be the Koch brothers setting the agenda because the GOP has none. The voters elected to lose their votes and voices with the choices they made yesterday. It is now a nation of Corporation rule.

[librechik]

9. hey, they're just getting started

I predict in a few years that the election industry will be bigger than healthcare as a percentage of GDP. Especially if they keep running it 24/7 /365.

[swilton]

10. So what's the solution?

Democrats need to spend more or change their policies?

[glinda]

11. And they will have even more money now as well as control of pretty much all media.

[Blue_Tires]

12. Anyone *still* want to spin the CU ruling as a good thing?

It should be beyond all doubt now...

[TomCADem]

13. Glenn Greenwald Has Vigorously Defended CU

Even after this election, I doubt he would reconsider his support for that decision.