30 Comments - Elo Kiddies - Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 9:59 am: To my mind, there are at least two issues here. One is that when outside groups spend so much more than candidates, they wind up framing the debate in ways that neither candidate wants. And the other is that the total amount is less important than the source of the funds. And too often, the source of the funds is obscured by sham front organizations. Whose message is this, really? It’s not the candidates’, certainly, but who is speaking? - MrJM - Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 10:06 am: Thank goodness the Citizens United decision isn’t corrupting our elections process. – MrJM - Madison County Watcher - Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 10:08 am: It would seem that the Democrats got EXACTLY what they wanted out of their map…a shot at gaining six seats. Anyone feeling outrage over this should just take it up with the Big Three. They made this happen with their map. Their fault. - Carl Nyberg - Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 10:08 am: Thank God Pres. George W. Bush appointed John Roberts and Sam Alito to the Supreme Court and they did some effective legislating from the bench. Before Citizens United, I was really concerned that low information voters didn’t get enough TV ads. Now, if we can just expand Citizens United to allow corporations to participate in field organizing, it will be a great jobs program for people who know how to do campaign work. Individual precincts will have multiple precinct captains. There will be the financial sector precinct captain and the defense industry precinct captain. - Team Sleep - Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 10:12 am: Jason told me yesterday that, when adding the money he and General Enyart have raised to outside dollars spent, his race is the sixth most expensive Congressional race in the country. Yikes. I think it’s going to take either a Constitutional Amendment or a large group of close-but-no-cigar candidates who band together and sue to overturn the ridiculous outside expenditure laws and precedents. There is a good argument that this election cycle has proven the “Citizens United” ruling to be a farce and ill-thought. - Leroy - Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 10:15 am: Tax it and use the proceeds to fund literacy programs that have been cut due to the state’s financial situation. Calling Lt. Governor Shelia Simon…. - Belle - Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 10:22 am: Totally agree with MrJM. This country is struggling and all of this money is being blown on this crazy election. Obviously TV and PR firms are raking it in. - wordslinger - Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 10:39 am: –Tax it and use the proceeds…– Tax what, exactly? When it comes to speech, you can’t levy special taxes. - Leroy - Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 10:46 am: “Tax what, exactly? When it comes to speech, you can’t levy special taxes. ” Tax political advertising. You are taking the media buy, not what is being said. I’ve heard time and time again we need to modernize the tax code in Illinois. Well media buys for elections has to be one of the fastest growing areas of the Illinois economy. So let’s tax it and use the proceeds to fund literacy programs. Kind of like how we tax strippers for expressing themselves and use the proceeds to fund programs that help stop violence against women. - Plutocrat03 - Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 10:49 am: Its a bailout for the tired old media. They will all have blacker ledger sheets as a result of this silliness. Does anyone really believe that an avalanche of my opponent is the devil ads will really induce the voters to make an affirmative choice? - wordslinger - Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 10:53 am: ==Does anyone really believe that an avalanche of my opponent is the devil ads will really induce the voters to make an affirmative choice?== Ask Judy Baar Topinka. Or Bill Brady. Negative spots work. That’s why you see them. As far as “tired old media,” last I checked, television is still rather popular. - Disconnect - Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 10:54 am: Citizen’s United was not about outside expenditures. It was about corporate dollars. Yes, it has driven up the total amount available, but unlimited independent expenditures existed before CU. As an example, George Soros gave 23 million to various 527s in 2004. - shore - Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 10:56 am: There are big choices (in the trillions of dollars) confronting the country and these 6 seats represent 1/4 of the difference between which party controls congress so no it’s not bad that some people wanted to make their case. $42 million is a bit more than what the white sox shelled out last week for the employment of jake peavy for 70 starts over the next 2 years. Not all that much in context. - zatoichi - Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 11:11 am: This is insane spending. I see the Gill/Davis ads all the time. $6.8 million in ads that basically say they are great humanitarians saving the world and the other guy is lying scum controlled by others. Guess they are both right? Do not have a clue what either of them actually stands for. This is has turned into a case of I got the money so use it or lose it. - mokenavince - Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 11:17 am: Just consider what a huge mistake the Supremes made with this Citizens United. What a colossal waste of money. The idea that lobbyist can buy and sell an election cuts to the core. Congress should makes laws to correct this, this should not continue. - The Captain - Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 11:18 am: I really don’t like this post Citizens United world, it needs to be changed. But, after acknowledging the proper perspective, I also grow quickly tired of the overreaction to campaign spending. First of all as a country we have implicitly or explicitly chosen to have campaigns funded privately and then the country reacts negatively anytime that spending is acknowledged while putting our head in the sand to the fact that a) campaigns cost money and b) the cost of campaigns keeps increasing. They say about $2.5 billion will be spent on the presidential campaign this year to decide the future of the country. Contrast that with the data that says we spent $8 billion on Halloween. I don’t like the rules governing campaign spending any more than anyone else but this overreaction to the fact that money is being spent on something important when compared to money spent on something so trivial is grating. - steve schnorf - Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 11:31 am: Note to reformers: Campaign finance reform doesn’t work - walkinfool - Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 11:33 am: Disconnect is right. This spending might be disgraceful and destructive, but it is only partly due to the Citizens United decision. The bulk of the outside money is from wealthy individuals and their controlled organizations. Not from public corporations. The outside money opposing candidates is about 10 to 1 versus that supporting them. This directly lowers the public trust in government and all politicians, regardless of how they behave. - Louis G. Atsaves - Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 12:07 pm: Citizens United leveled the playing field for Republican candidates, who were being outspent and out raised by Democrats and Unions. My position on campaign finance reform has since radically shifted. Now I would simply lift all caps and limits and dramatically increase the disclosure aspect of it. Both on a federal and state level. This way, candidates can better control their messages and check on who is donating to the opposition. - Knome Sane - Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 12:10 pm: What saddens me is that the financial backers and architects of the Super PACs (the Koch Bros, Sheldon Adelson, Freedom Works, Crossroads GPS, Karl Rove, etc) do it under the guise of “patriotism” when what they are doing is the least patriotic thing that could be done. Voter supression, distortions, lies, deception, win at all costs. Wow, I sound naive. But I am not. I’m just sad. - wordslinger - Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 12:22 pm: –Citizens United leveled the playing field for Republican candidates, who were being outspent and out raised by Democrats and Unions.– Unions operated under the same restrictions as corporations before Citizens United. And back when I was in finance, I was pretty familiar with the practice of corporate bundling, where “voluntary” individual contributions to PACS favored by employers were quid pro quo when it came to bonuses and raises. You’re really not going to blame “Big-Money Democrats” for keeping Republicans down, are you? - Plutocrat03 - Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 12:59 pm: “Negative spots work. That’s why you see them.” As usual, you missed my point. When both candidates are spilling garbage, the spots cancel each other out. What is a low information voter to do? - Cook County Commoner - Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 1:02 pm: The numbers are astounding. Illinois needs to create more hotly contested races in its congressional districts. And somehow the state needs to figure out a way to keep the spending in Illinois, instead of bleeding it out to carpetgagger firms and consultants and national media. This could be the only growth industry in the state. - shore - Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 1:06 pm: new poster Zatiochi makes a great point I’ve made before which is that $5 million spent in one part of the state is not the same as $5 million in another part of the state. I know it’s more work for you, but when you say $5 million spent on the gill race that means a lot more ads than say for bob dold, it helps put things into better context in explaining what’s going on. - Leroy - Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 1:19 pm: “Note to reformers: Campaign finance reform doesn’t work” Right! So let’s tax it like we do cigarettes, alcohol, slot machines, and bottled water…all those other destructive things we are forced to live with, too. - Team Sleep - Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 2:21 pm: Shore - true, but keep in mind that two of major media markets that are in play for three top races (Quad Cities in the 17th and St. Louis in the 12th & 13th) are super-expensive because the bulk of the broadcast audience are across the Mississippi. The last time I worked on a statewide race (bad GOP year) we skimped big-time on the Quad Cities because there were gubernatorial elections in Iowa and Illinois and the rates were so cost-prohibitive that we would have greatly shorted ourselves in areas that a Republican could have actually won. - Capitol View - Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 2:34 pm: how about a tax on political contributions to all campaigns and SuperPac groups,with the dollars going to government at all levels? To me, the funniest thing about this election cycle is that after spending a billion dollars on it, the results will look incredibly similar to before the 2012 election… - Say it ain't so! - Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 2:35 pm: Did anyone notice that the combined amount of expenditures made supporting Joe Walsh and expenditures made opposing Tammy Duckworth total over $6,000,000, while the combined amount of expenditures made supporting Tammy Duckworth and expenditures made opposing Joe Walsh was less than $500,000. - RNUG - Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 4:27 pm: In terms of campaign funding reform, I still like the idea of full disclosure, unlimited contributions, no campaign fund to campaign fund transfers, and dissolving the campaign fund after the election by either donating the unspent amount to bonafide charities (IRS recognized 501c3) or pro-rated refunds to the donors. I’d be open to some minor loopholes like no refunds under maybe $5 or, for the winner, keeping a small amount for office expenses ($5K per month? to cover office rent, utilities and 1 staff aide) during the term of office … but nothing that would allow a huge hoard of cash to be accumulated. - walkinfool - Monday, Nov 5, 12 @ 4:56 pm: Louis: the actual numbers don’t back up your argument of leveling the field. Post-Citizens United outside money flows generally favor the GOP. Some Illinois examples above. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.