While the candidates play at Prince Charming their ugly sisters fling mud
IN A Magnificent Catastrophe, Edward J. Larson documents America’s first truly competitive presidential election campaign, a most brutal affair in 1800 between President John Adams and Vice President Thomas Jefferson. It had it all, the vicious anonymous attacks, accusations of unpatriotic behaviour, and smears about religious faith. How things have changed.
Two years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment also covered the rights of corporations and interest groups to expend financial resources to influence the outcome of elections, thus thwarting attempts by the federal government to regulate independent campaign expenditures. The ruling is largely credited with giving birth to the Super Political Action Committee (PAC), that’s officially independent of a candidate, but often neck deep in financial resources, ideological fervour and political know-how. And unlike offerings to political candidates, donations are not disclosed or, most importantly, capped.
Given the ease with which a Super PAC can be created and issue devastating political advertisements, they are regarded by some as corrupting. At first, President Barack Obama shunned them, only to buckle as their electoral muscle became clear. Current projections indicate that half of the $10bn expected to be spent on 2012 races will come from Super PACs. And although President Obama has pledged to raise $1bn in campaign funds, Republican-backed Super PACs are outraising their Democratic counterparts by almost four-to-one.
But these great financial equalisers have their political drawbacks. Last week, a memo was leaked from a Republican strategist courting donors to bankroll advertisements regarding Obama’s erstwhile mentor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Despite no evidence of Romney’s complicity, the Republican candidate was forced to issue a statement and was quickly enveloped by the news cycle, allowing the Obama campaign to accuse him of only “tepidly” distancing himself.
Obama strategist David Axelrod claimed that this negativity was typical of Republicans, whereas the President’s campaign regarded Romney’s Mormon faith as “not fair game”. However, when Obama Super PAC donor Bill Maher labelled the Republican candidate’s religion “a cult,” the Obama campaign didn’t comment. Newark Mayor Corey Booker, a rising star in Democratic politics, called for greater civility, describing the attacks by Obama and Super PACs on Romney’s business career at Bain Capital “nauseating.” Booker’s appeal to change the election’s rhetoric to “the issues that the American public cares about,” didn’t escape Axelrod’s wrath.
As the ugly sister of the official campaign, Super PACs bear some responsibility for further contaminating the public discourse. However, the key problem is that the regulatory regime incentivises campaigns to hide behind mysterious groups that launch smears. It’s the rules, not the negativity that’s the problem. After all, negativity in presidential campaigns is almost as old as the republic.
Ewan Watt is a Washington DC-based consultant. You can follow him on @ewancwatt