Why Do We Spend So Little On Elections?
In 2012, the U.S. government will collect something like $2.5 trillion in taxes and will probably spend more than $3.5 trillion. Yet the campaign spending that shapes who will vote on these levels of taxes and spending is just $6 billion — about two-tenths of 1% of federal spending. For comparison, total sales of hair care products in the U.S. are about $7 billion per year, and sales of toothpaste are $2 billion per year. Proctor & Gamble alone spent something like $4.6 billion on advertising in 2010. [It’s hard to understand why] a free-and-open U.S. national election in a $15 trillion economy should spend a whole lot less than what the country spends on hair care and toothpaste, or what one company spends on advertising.
Paper. Timothy Taylor analysis.
This is a great post. Far to often the media, and talking heads blabber on and on about how much money is spent on elections. There has been countless debate about the Citizens United court decision, and the alleged “erosion” it has had on the democratic right to vote. People hardly begin to recognize just how much is truely at stake when congressional and presidential elections occur.
I’ve heard Congressman, Pete Sessions, make a similar claim about how little is actually spent (per capita) trying to influence elections.
If I had my way, there’s be almost nothing spent on elections, issue advocacy and other means to influence elections. I’m not suggesting there should be constraints on spending. I agree spending on issue advocacy is an element of free speech. When I say there should be little spent it’s because I believe Congress should not be in the business of social engineering and taking from one group to give to another. In a just society, corporate and individual interests would not spend on lobbying because the return on investment would be $0. People and organizations only spend on issue advocacy because Congress holds the power to impact people and firms; and holds the power to seize resources and redistribute them to favored groups. If Congress lacked the power to take our money and redistribute it, there would no need to influence the process.
I find the political process demoralizing. I don’t want to continually hear how I need this or that politician to solve my problems. I want to vote for the guy (or gal) who believes it’s his (or her) job to get out of the way and let me solve my own problems.
Campaign finance is a complex issue and I recommend that anyone interested in it read Lawrence Lessig’s book ‘Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress–and a Plan to Stop It’.
He explores how dependence on private donors for campaign contributions distracts congressmen from their intended dependence on the voters.
Timothy Taylor asserts that “It’s very hard to find evidence that campaign contributions cause politicians to vote in a way that the people of their district or state would object to: that is, politicians respond much more to their constituencies than to their campaign donors”
Lessig explains that while politicians would never go against their constituency on an issue that they care about, special interest groups have enormous influence over small mundane issues that disproportionately impact them.
This is from the basic logic of concentrated benefits and dispersed cost.
Buster that is quite extreme; “If Congress lacked the power to take our money and redistribute it, there would no need to influence the process.”
What about the police? firefighters? military? The size and powers of government is an important debate but I think the power to tax and spend is beyond that.
I agree with August.
I also think it important to note that presidential candidates probably won’t be influenced; the real problem originates from representatives and senators in competitive districts where a spending influences outcomes.
Are you sure its right to compare spending of giant multinational corporations with profit incentives to government elections?
@ Buster, I dont know a time in which businesses, citizens, or organizations didn’t petition (though campaign contributuions) the government for favorable legislation. In fact, the hole notion of pork barrel legislation was kind of inherrently built into our representative democracy. In my oppinion “pork” is taking from the entire tax base, and trying to “get”, or “distribute” as much of that money for their district (or state). So why shouldn’t bussinesses or advacacy groups lobby certain legislators for money to help their cause. If a legislator is sympathetic, it’s probably because his constituents will be please with the outcome.
But I agree that if the government takes (through taxes) less of our money, WE can decide what WE want to do with it.
+1 August, those earmarks get us every time.
Isn’t that the point of legislation, to obfuscate?
The amount of spending doesn’t change the fact that the way the systems exists now results in those who have money having far more say in an election. Freedom of speech means we should also try for some amount of equality of speech.
…because we spend ALL we got (and what we don’t too) on health care…