A guy walks into a bar. He gets a drink, stands up and says, "All politicians are crooks." A man in the corner replies, "Hey, I resent that." First guy asks, "Why, are you a politician?" Man in the corner says, "No, I'm a crook."
Be that as it may, Floridians received both politicians and crooks a week ago today in its primary election, and thanks to media coverage, everyone and their mother knows it.
Touted as the "end of incumbency" and the time when angry voters would show Washington politicians just how angry they were, Tuesday's results showcased none of that. Well, maybe some of that, but it's hard to separate voter intent from the sheer amount of money spent in this year's gubernatorial election. This election was the most expensive in Florida history at about $70 million spent, and about three-fourths of that coming from Rick Scott's personal bank account. The Senate race, too, has redefined the notion that "money doesn't grow on trees."
Jeff Greene threw in about $30 million of his own money to beat sitting Congressman Kendrick Meek. Of course, both Scott and Greene's money trees were planted using questionable soil. Scott defrauded the government as the CEO of a mega-hospital and Greene bet against the housing market before it fell.
Stand-up guys, I'm sure.
This trend isn't limited to the Sunshine State, either. Nationwide elections are spending
just as much, and a few individuals are even trumping Florida in the race to buy, sorry, win the election. California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman made her money as CEO of E-bay and is now working up a hefty bid for governor. To date she has given $100 million (yes, million) to her campaign. Another CEO, Carly Fiorina, has given $5.5 million to her Senate campaign, which seems like pebbles in this environment. I'm not sure if they've been paying attention to anything other than annihilating their opponent, but their state of California they so desperately want to represent is currently in a budget deficit. I'm no mathematics expert, but $100 million can buy a lot of government programs. Perhaps it would send a better message to voters if the candidates just paid off the state's debt instead of wasting it on attack ads. If anything, it would at least demonstrate their dedication to reducing the deficit. Then again, attack ads are so much fun to watch.
Consequently - and this is a piece of news for all the self-funders out there - a recent study by the National Institute on Money in State Politics found only one in 10 of self-funders won between 2000 and 2009. I don't even want to think about the amount of money wasted there.
Back in Florida, the national media ran stories about how "shocking" it was that Scott beat McCollum. The "political outsider" message was a reality! Voters are actually rejecting career politicians! The pundits were right! And look at Jeff Greene! He lost.
That's right, $30 million worth of calling Meek a scum of the earth "career politician" got him nowhere. It's an interesting dichotomy, and pundits are quick to analyze why Scott could buy, sorry again, win the election but Greene couldn't. Is it just Republicans that are full of incumbent hatred?
Maybe it takes $50 million to fully saturate the TV market, and Greene's paltry $30 million just didn't cut it. Or maybe Medicare fraud is somehow less ethically offensive to voters than betting against the housing market and riding around Cuba in a yacht.
Maybe it's a combination of all the above. I tend to disagree. At the end of the day, it comes down to Election 101. Meek had a stronghold base of African American voters as he faced a guy that behaved like a typical rich guy. Greene didn't interact with the voters nearly as much, and he used his money without a clear message. Meek had better name recognition, was a better established Democrat the voters knew (he took his current seat in Congress after his mother retired from it), and he started early. Greene's attack ads came on too late in the game to have any real effect.
The Republican race for governor was a completely different story. It was close all the way to the wire with both sides attacking each other for unethical behavior, both spending a lot of money (obviously Scott spent more), and both traveling throughout the state (McCollum more than Scott). It was 46 percent to 43 percent at the end of the day a week ago today. I call it a toss up. They both had equal negative attacks against them, McCollum had the more damaging "career politician" label and voters picked what they thought would be the lesser of two evils.
Interestingly enough, the third and lesser-known candidate, Mike McCallister, was able to get 10 percent of the vote with only $8,000 spent, a result of voters hating both Scott and McCollum. In contrast, the Meek-Greene percentages were more decisive, at 58-31.
So, a note to the media: nothing is what it seems in elections. Voters decided based on a myriad of reasons, and as much as the pundits like to analyze the why, it comes down to an age-old notion: What happens in the voting booth stays in the voting booth - unless, of course, you have a giant money tree in your backyard and you can just buy the voting booth - I hear Rick Scott's is blooming this time of year.
Brittany Fox is a political science senior.
