The partisan makeup of American politics, particularly at the national level, has seen quite a bit of change recently. Congress has transitioned from Democratic dominance to Republican control in just six years.
Through all of the political sea changes, one factor has remained constant: the massive amount of political spending that characterizes American elections.
Somewhat surprisingly, preliminary numbers show that political spending actually declined on average this year from the midterm elections in 2010.
In 2010, the average House candidate raised about $575,000 and spent almost as much. For Senate candidates, those numbers were $2.4 million and $2.3 million, respectively.
In 2014, although House candidates raised more money on average — about $666,000 per candidate — they spent less, about $550,000 each. The same holds true for Senate candidates. They raised more on average than in 2010, but spent slightly less.
Regardless of the exact fundraising numbers, money — particularly money spent on political advertising — is still the strongest determinant of which candidates are elected. Nowhere does that concept ring more true than here in Florida.
The Florida governor’s race between re-elected Republican incumbent Gov. Rick Scott and Democratic challenger Charlie Crist was the most expensive race in the country in terms of political advertising.
The Florida gubernatorial race saw more than $98 million spent on political advertising, the vast majority devoted to negative advertising seeking to attack opposing candidates.
The fact that Scott out-advertised Crist by a 2-to-1 margin may help explain why he was able to achieve re-election, despite some of the worst approval numbers of any politician in the entire country.
Political advertising, by and large, serves no constructive purpose. Although it can help increase name recognition, the ads often contain deeply misleading information, whether positive or negative. Instead of presenting positive, constructive solutions to the issues that concern voters, candidates seek to drag each other into the mud and emerge on Election Day as the least dirty.
The massive increases in political spending also have a harmful effect on the political media. The tendency of American news outlets, especially those at the national level, to endlessly cover stories about political ads and fundraising causes actual public policy issues to take a back seat to these superficial topics.
Some argue that any restrictions on political spending risk violating the First Amendment rights crafted by the Founding Fathers. However, it seems unlikely that the founders envisioned a political environment filled with toxic, negative discourse and unaccountable spending when they wrote the words “freedom of speech.” Regardless of whether action is taken through legislation or a constitutional amendment, something must be done to stem the harmful tide of negative political advertising.
[A version of this story ran on page 6 on 11/17/2014]
