Anti-war liberal Eugene McCarthy stunned the nation when his impressive showing in the 1968 New Hampshire Democratic primary spurred President Lyndon Johnson to drop his re-election bid. At the root of McCarthy’s upset: massive financial support from like-minded millionaires.
At least five millionaires, most notably philanthropist Stewart Mott, propelled McCarthy’s campaign with contributions of $100,000 or more. Mott’s $210,000 in contributions is roughly equivalent to $1.36 million today.
But in post-McCain-Feingold America, with its $2,500 limit on personal political contributions, the root of McCarthy’s viability is not just unlikely – it’s illegal.
Enter the super PAC.
Since the landmark 2010 Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. FEC, donors are still limited in their contributions, but may spend their money to voice their political views through independent organizations – in support of certain candidates, if they wish. And while the new campaign finance regime has yet to produce an upset on the scale of McCarthy’s showing in New Hampshire, it’s clear that the underdogs are the big winners in Citizens United.
The conventional underdog in the current race for the Republican presidential nomination is Rick Santorum. (Ron Paul is, of course, an underdog as well, but his campaign is anything but conventional, and hence a difficult barometer of political trends.) Like McCarthy, Santorum has defied expectations due, in small measure, to the (indirect) financial backing of very wealthy supporters. His performances in Colorado, Missouri, and Minnesota make clear that he is in the race for the long haul.
The importance of his financial backing was evident in the Wall Street Journal’s recent look at Red, White and Blue Fund, the super PAC supporting the former Pennsylvania Senator’s candidacy. The group has spent nearly $2.2 million, 96% of which has gone to promoting Santorum’s candidacy (as opposed to attacking his opponents).
The group will continue to support Santorum over the coming months, which “could help keep Mr. Santorum competitive against his better-funded rivals,” the Journal noted, “and is one reason the fight for the Republican nomination will likely run at least through Super Tuesday on March 6.”
Campaign finance attorney Robert Kelner agrees: “There is no question that one reason that this is turning out to be such a competitive primary season is that candidates who in prior years would have been starved out are now still in the race,” Kelner told the Journal.
Name recognition is perhaps a candidate’s most important attribute. Hence, super PAC ads for more well-known candidates have less marginal utility than they do for more obscure ones. In general, frontrunners have less to gain from one more political advertisement than underdogs.
“Three states, three winners. What a great country,” Santorum exclaimed during his post-South Carolina primary speech. But five states later, the race would likely be far less competitive were it not for the large expenditures of independent political groups. Santorum’s persistence is a testament to a campaign finance regime that doesn’t privilege frontrunners at the expense of underdogs – and deny voters the ensuing variety of viable candidates.
Just as more speech is healthy for the democratic process, so too is a larger field of electoral contenders. Inevitability in elections, where it is not backstopped by overwhelming voter consensus, narrows the field of potential candidates not through the consideration of voter preferences, but through inertia. The process is healthier when candidates must actively vie for support, not just refuse to rock the proverbial boat.
We will continue to hear much doom and gloom about the supposedly catastrophic effects of super PACs on the electoral process. But the current race is offering insight into the benefits of unlimited electioneering communications – and the pitfalls of arbitrary restrictions. Those restrictions inevitably benefit current frontrunners, at the expense of a diverse and lively field of candidates.
