Why "Outside Money" Isn't Something to Get Angry About

The chart of the day, which comes via the Center for Public Integrity, is both vivid and, I'll argue, mostly beside the point. But before we get to my objections, the first thing to notice is what's obvious: Scott Walker and his allies spent way, way, way more money than the other side did in Wisconsin. While it's true that the more high-profile an election is the less a spending advantage matters, and while it's also true that as long as the other side has enough funds to compete, a spending advantage matters less, we're talking about a 7-to-1 difference here, which is pretty striking. Now, to the chart:

 

I'll ignore the fact that they use a pie chart, which is if not a capital crime of data visualization, at least a misdemeanor. In any case, there are two points this chart is making: the difference in Walker's money versus Barrett's money, and the difference in the amount each raised from out of state. To the latter, I say, who cares?

This data point—that one candidate raised more from outside the state or district than the other—is raised equally often by people in both parties, to demonstrate that one candidate is in touch with the good folks back home, while the other is captive of sinister outside interests. In the case of the Wisconsin recall, it's particularly silly. This was as nationalized as any state race can be. If a bunch of liberal billionaires had stepped up with an extra $26 million so Barrett could match Walker's money, would Barrett have said, "No, I'll only accept help from Wisconsin-based super PACs!" Of course not.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that our post-Citizens United world doesn't make a mockery of democracy, because it surely does. But Scott Walker isn't a pernicious figure who wants to destroy unions so the wealthy can trample all over working people and the Republican party will enhance its electoral advantages because rich conservatives from outside Wisconsin give him money. Rich conservatives from outside Wisconsin give him money because he's a pernicious figure who wants to destroy unions so the wealthy can trample all over working people and the Republican party will enhance its electoral advantages. There's a difference, and it's one we usually ignore when we talk about "outside money."

It's particularly irrelevant when we're talking about Congress. Members of Congress may try to serve their districts, but they spend most of their time working on issues with national importance. So of course, groups and individuals with national concerns are going to give money to members of Congress. If you get a lot of money from outside your district, it probably just means you're an incumbent. And we may decry politicians being bought, but don't forget that very few get bought against their will. The identities of those who bought a politician may tell you something about who he is and what he's up to, but it's probably something you should have known about him already.

Comments

"Scott Walker isn't a pernicious figure who wants to destroy unions so the wealthy can trample all over working people and the Republican party will enhance its electoral advantages because rich conservatives from outside Wisconsin give him money."
Walker would still be shining shoes on a Milwaukee street corner (or more likely belching brew while watching p0rn) without big$ PR. The tasklist for teathug tools is simple.
And if liberal plutocrat bribes were as overwhelming as teathug billionaire money[1] is, then liberal plutocrat money would be as destructive of democracy.

"we may decry politicians being bought, but don't forget that very few get bought against their will"
Yes. The freedom-striving voter's only option in defense, is Vote Lesser Evil, because voting otherwise only encourages the bribers to fund Greater Evil.

However, I somewhat speculatively believe that tea plutocrats cannot sustain the funding ratios of Walker/Kleefisch recall bribery/brainwashing. Note that the plutocrats couldn't adequately fund brainwashing to maintain dominance of Wisconsin state legislature. Note that the "recall for Bad Policy, not crime, isn't valid recall" (sidestep-tactic) brainwashing didn't prevent voter recall of (some of) Bad Policy WI state legislators.
teathug victory in WI recalls have been very marginal victory (that also relied on favorable luck.)

_______
1. This includes captured "liberal media", such as almost all of Talk-AM, Foxnews, and the standard "corporatese" of msm journalism. This wall of propaganda combines campaign-specific funding, and 24/7 general funding.

they use a pie chart, which is if not a capital crime of data visualization, at least a misdemeanor
Punishable by public pieing!

OT: Word verification... Not case sensitive. is useful instruction since some captchas often repeatedly fail for inexplicable reasons.

This post has helped me for an article which I am writing. Thank you for giving me another point of view on this topic. Now I can easily complete my article. Cheers
storage boxes

This topic is the one that I have been looking into from last 3 days and your insight is extremely useful. Thanks for sharing this information.
http://www.google.com/images

You need to be logged in to comment.
(If there's one thing we know about comment trolls, it's that they're lazy)

Connect
, after login or registration your account will be connected.