One of the most undercommented on features of the 2016 election was the fact that Hillary Clinton outspent President Trump 2-to-1. She lost a squeaker.
In 2020, little changed. Joe Biden outspent Trump by nearly 2-to-1. Although he won, his margin of victory in the states that he needed for the required electoral votes was smaller. For all of his financial dominance, the favored candidate won by the skin of his teeth.
Earlier this year, Tom Steyer spent hundreds of millions of dollars to go nowhere in the Democratic presidential primary. Michael Bloomberg put an exclamation mark on that folly with his futile presidential candidacy. It turns out that you can spend a billion dollars and get nowhere in an election.
This year was filled with such reminders that the Left’s obsession with campaign finance and the Citizens United decision specifically is misguided.
Although the final totals are still out, the Republicans’ miraculous hold in the Senate occurred despite Democrats’ outspending GOP candidates (including incumbents) by massive amounts as of Oct. 14.
Even Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was outspent almost 2-to-1 by his hapless opponent as Democratic donors poured $88 million into the black hole of Amy McGrath’s candidacy.
Sen. Joni Ernst, an Iowa Republican, who was expected by some last month to lose her seat, ended up winning by a comfortable 7 points despite being outspent 2-to-1 by the Democratic realtor who ran against her.
Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, who was also expected to lose, won soundly despite being outspent by more than 2-to-1 by her Democratic opponent.
Republican Sen. Steve Daines of Montana handily defeated the popular Democratic governor who challenged him despite being outspent, $38 million to $26 million, as of last month.
Even in states where Democratic hopes were minimal or nonexistent, their Senate candidates enjoyed massive financial advantages as they went down to defeat. In Kansas, Democrat Barbara Bollier had outspent Rep. Roger Marshall by about 4-to-1 (as of mid-October) on her way to a 12-point loss. Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham’s opponent outspent him in South Carolina. The hopeless Sen. Doug Jones, a Democrat from Alabama, outspent his Republican challenger by more than 4-to-1 and was clobbered. In Alaska, the losing Democratic nominee outspent Sen. Dan Sullivan, a Republican, 2-to-1.
Perhaps you notice the pattern: Not even a massive financial advantage guarantees victory in politics. Even in competitive states, and even in competitive races, the money spent to disseminate political messages cannot, by itself, determine election outcomes.
To be sure, money serves as a barrier to entry for unserious candidates — those lacking the support to raise anything. But not even a billion dollars can create a popular movement where there is no support. It cannot turn an odious candidate into an admirable one. It cannot make attractive policies out of the ones that voters reject.
Money doesn’t buy elections — not even close. And that means one cannot fix politics simply by fixing campaign finance. These inconvenient facts demolish the liberal fallacy that it is worth diminishing the freedom of speech even slightly in the name of regulating campaign finance.
