Billionaires Don’t Buy Elections

On September 21st, Scott Walker abruptly quit the presidential race. After two nearly invisible debate performances, he was polling abysmally. Nevertheless, his exit came as a surprise. In fact, just four days before Walker left the race, Nate Silver, the political prognosticator who correctly predicted the outcomes of all 50 states in 2012, was optimistic about his chances to become a more serious contender.

Strongly conservative, with an impressive election track record, Walker had always seemed like one of the most plausible candidates for the Republican nomination. As governor of Wisconsin he successfully cut the collective bargaining power of public sector unions. Then, after widespread protest in his politically moderate state, he became the first governor in history to survive an attempt to recall him from office. He was comfortably reelected two years later. In what was maybe the most significant indicator of his strength, Walker entered the presidential race with a formidable Super PAC.

Ever since Citizens United v. FEC, the 2010 Supreme Court decision that allowed unlimited political spending by independent groups, Political Action Committees (PACs) have brought in an explosion of money in politics. Unlike official campaigns, which can only accept a maximum of $2,700 per contributor per election, PACs can take $5,000 a year from a contributor. Super PACs, however, must maintain official independence from a candidate, but they otherwise abide by few rules. They may, and do, produce advertising material obviously supporting a particular candidate. Former advisors to the candidates who are familiar with their strategies can run these organizations. Most importantly, they can receive as much money as the wealthiest people, unions, and corporations care to give.

The Super PAC system appears to give more influence than ever to the richest people and corporations. It is ethically questionable enough that most Americans at least generally disagree with it. Although a Gallup poll found that a majority of Americans consider spending money a form of free speech, the same people polled supported limits on campaign spending. And a Washington Post poll soon after the Citizens United decision found 80 percent opposition to “corporations and unions [spending] as much money as they want to help political candidates win elections.”

In reality, though, the influence of Super PACS has always been overstated. Super PACs must operate independently enough from campaigns that their money cannot go to as effective a use as a direct donation would. But even if it could, that money would not do as much good as wealthy donors or outraged liberals might expect. Ultimately, the limited success of Super PACs in actually getting candidates elected has only revealed what has always been true in campaigns. Beyond a baseline threshold, more money doesn’t make much of a difference.

Despite their limitations, objecting to Super PACs has been an instrumental campaign tactic for perhaps their most vocal critic, septuagenarian socialist Bernie Sanders, and has helped him launch a respectable challenge to Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton. “We now have a political situation where billionaires are literally able to buy elections and candidates,” said Sanders, who is one of only two credible candidates in the field to eschew the help of a Super PAC. (The other is self-financed billionaire Donald Trump, which only seems to confirm Sanders’ point.)

Although an unaffiliated group, Collective Actions PAC, has raised $8,795 and counting on his behalf, Sanders has relied on small donations from over 650,000 people to build his campaign. The approach has been effective enough to generate $26 million in the third quarter of 2015 alone, nearly matching Clinton. Most importantly to his supporters, Sanders has done this while mounting a principled stand.

Meanwhile, the Super PAC backing Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton, Priorities USA Action, has already raised nearly $16 million. Three different groups supporting Ted Cruz have combined to generate more than $36 million. The Jeb Bush–championing Right to Rise USA has over $103 million in the bank. And before he had to drop out, Walker’s Super PAC, Unintimidated PAC, was the second richest, boasting more than $20 million.

It didn’t mean much. Unintimidated PAC made little to no difference in Walker’s support with voters. In fact, it probably hurt his campaign. Although the Super PACs may seem to be independent in name only, with the nine richest ones in this election dedicated to helping a specific candidate, they cannot directly consult with the campaigns about strategy or, of course, send the candidates any of their millions of dollars. Unintimidated PAC, under the leadership of two of Walker’s former campaign managers, lined up a group of wealthy people to donate. Walker even drew the public support of conservative billionaire David Koch, one of liberals’ least favorite people in America. Yet when Walker’s campaign was languishing, his former campaign managers could not offer advice. When he struggled to raise enough money from average voters to pay his staff, Unintimidated PAC, as unintimidated as it may have been, could not help him out.

Much the same was true for Rick Perry. The far-right former Texas governor entered the 2016 race after flaming out in 2012, backed largely by two very rich Texas businessmen. One Perry-backing Super PAC raised nearly $3 million, and another raised $10 million. After he failed to make any impression in the cramped Republican field, however, Perry had no choice but to end his run.

Beyond just the limitations on the freedom of Super PACs, though, the idea that a few billionaires could ever buy a presidential election is fundamentally flawed. It is true that the candidates that raise more money usually win. In fact, a study by the nonpartisan organization United Republic found that 91 percent of 2012 congressional candidates who generated more than their opponents came out on top. Although presidential elections are much less stacked in favor of one candidate–in congressional elections the incumbent is typically a prohibitive fundraising favorite–the winner of 10 of the 14 presidential races since 1960 has raised more than his opponent. But what causes what? If the more popular candidates tend to bring in more money from more people and the more popular candidates tend to win, this proves nothing about the role of the money.

Indeed, a closer look at those 14 elections suggests just how tenuous a connection money actually has to the popular vote. Just two of the six races in which the candidates raised essentially the same amount of money were remotely close. In the most lopsided vote tally of all, 1964, Barry Goldwater received just 38 percent of the popular vote even though he had access to almost double the funds of Lyndon Johnson.

Of course, 14 elections is also a very small sample size. To better understand the role of money in politics, economist Steven Levitt did his own study. His results: holding everything else constant, congressional candidates who spent twice as much ended up doing one percent better in the popular vote than they would otherwise have done.

So money has an impact on elections. It can increase a candidate’s exposure and pay for staff on the ground (although if it’s raised by a Super PAC it can’t even do that). Campaign contributions also create some incentive for the candidate to promote the interests of their donors while in office, although donors are probably likely to give to people who agree with them to begin with. Maybe most significantly, a baseline amount of money can be a barrier to entry in politics. There are always exceptions. Dave Brat, for example, challenged and beat House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in the Virginia congressional primary last year despite raising one-fortieth as much money. Fundraising, though, always has and always will play some role in campaigns.

Citizens United may have changed the game, but it has not much affected the outcome. The decision ushered in an era of the wealthiest Americans trying to dictate elections. They just haven’t really been able to do so. Money does not have as powerful a role on campaigns as people may think, and the money that a Super PAC raises is simply not that effective at changing election results. In 2012, casino mogul Sheldon Adelson spent more than $150 million on a variety of Super PACs and other nonprofits with the goal of beating President Obama. The Koch brothers spent around $60 million in addition to organizing their rich friends. All in all, the top two conservative Super PACs generated a staggering $271 million compared to less than $157 million for their top three liberal counterparts. Obama still won.

In the 2016 race, Donald Trump and Ben Carson have led the Republican pack. Between them, they had less than one-fourteenth the Super PAC money of Jeb Bush as of mid-October, who is polling further down in the Republican field. Ted Cruz, with a large war chest of his own, has done even worse in the polls. On the Democratic side, Sanders, with no Super PAC money at all, is encroaching on the fundraising powerhouse Clinton.

No matter who is elected, our next president will have spent a massive amount of money on his or her campaign. A Super PAC will probably have spent even more. At first glance, we do have a system “where billionaires are literally able to buy elections.” But Bernie Sanders is wrong. Those purchases aren’t very effective. Billionaires don’t really control elections. Voters do.