The (allegedly) high cost of campaigns

posted at 9:50 am on February 21, 2012 by Karl

MoJo’s Kevin Drum acknowledges what most progressives will not:

From 1964 all the way through 2000, the cost of presidential campaigns was pretty stable, ranging around $300-600 million in inflation-adjusted terms. It was only in 2004 and 2008 that costs suddenly went through the roof.

And that happened without the eeevil Citizens United ruling from the Supreme Court. That decision paved the way for super-PACs, much-demonized on the left, despite the fact that they increase the transparency of campaigns and level the playing field. If not for super-PACs, Mitt Romney’s rivals (save Ron Paul) would likely have been out weeks ago.

Instead, Romney is running into fundraising troubles. Of course, a guy worth $200 million can write himself a check. However, that would only play into narratives about Mitt’s wealth and weakness that he would surely prefer to avoid if possible.

As January fundraising numbers became public Monday, some noted Romney’s $6.5 million take was far less than what Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and even John McCain raised four Januarys ago. On the other hand, Obama raised much less now than four Januarys ago, and the Romney-Santorum total is competitive. The fundraising to date — and Obama’s hypocritical embrace of super-PACs — suggests that overall campaign spending may not set a record this cycle.

Campaign spending should not be the progressives’ bete noire in the first place. As George Will is fond of noting, total campaign spending is roughly what Proctor & Gamble spends advertising its products in one year, or what Americans spend on yogurt in a given year. Given that the government now bails out everyone from Goldman Sachs to the UAW, turns the health insurance industry into a tax collector for the welfare state, and works a regulatory stranglehold on domestic energy production while dumping money into the crony capitalism of so-called “green jobs” programs, the shock ought to be that more people aren’t trying to buy elections.

Progressives fixated on the allegedly high cost of campaigns ought to be more concerned with the very real costs of the government leviathan. The progressives’ concern ought to be that a government this corrupt and intrusive invites capture by the wealthy and powerful. But it never was their concern, dating back to the progressive era of Teddy Roosevelt. For all of the prog posturing about being for the people against the powerful, they have always been accomodating to the latter if it serves their statist agenda.

Blowback