180 degrees

If the US economy is in decline maybe the 2012 candidates should run for office every year. The money flowing through their campaigns could rejuvenate the economies of many states and create thousands of jobs across America. The big winners? Media companies rolling in advertising money during 2012 as candidates spend, spend, and spend again to denounce their rivals.

Some analysts expect television stations will take in as much as $US5 billion from campaign advertising this year – up almost 80 per cent from the $2.8 billion spent in 2008. A lot of this money is the result of a highly contentious 2010 Supreme Court decision sparked by a right wing group called Citizens United that demanded the right to broadcast a film critical of Hilary Clinton. The result, a victory for Citizens United, effectively granted a corporation the same political donor rights as an individual.

The tight ruling (voted 5-4 by the nine judges) was applauded by many (but not all) on the right and denounced by President Obama and others. In simple terms, the ruling eased restrictions on corporate campaign spending and contributor identities, effectively opening up a great big grey area for how a campaign can be managed and funded. In brief, a corporation can donate as much as it wants to a campaign, for whatever reason, and do so anonymously. The result is billions for politicians and lobbyists. Oh, and TV companies.

A great example and irony in this, however, can be seen in the recent experience of Newt Gingrich. The former Speaker was a strong supporter of the Supreme Court decision and a regular partner with Citizens United, with which he has “produced” a number of political “films”. But so it was that Gingrich felt the full press down weight of attack ads from Mitt Romney funded by organisations in turn funded by corporate powers just as soon as he started to exercise some kind of success. 

The law states that these so-called Super PACs (“PAC” as in Political Action Committee) cannot coordinate campaigns with a candidate. But as Timothy Egan has pointed out in the New York Times, a Super PAC supporting Mitt Romney by the name of “Restore Our Future” is run by former associates of Romney’s at Bain Capital, business friends of his in Utah and some of the same donors who Swift-boated John Kerry in 2004.

“If we coordinated in any way whatsoever we’d go to the big house,” defended Romney.

But don’t expect the jailer to come calling any time soon.

Of course, it’s not solely money that will see a candidate get over the line. In Iowa, Rick Santorum effectively spent 74 cents per vote against Rick Perry’s $358. Santorum is still in the race. Just. Perry, though, is distant history back in Texas.

Aside of money, of course, there’s also the issues that are the key to victory. Issues that included, according to a televised debate on CNN last week, establishing a colony on the moon, squeezing the life out of Cuba, and arguing over whether Gingrich said Spanish was “the language of the ghetto in 2008”.  Oh, and don’t forget the candidates unabashed love of Israel.

No mention of the economy, though.