Booman makes a good point. Big money kept Obama from running up the score and Dems from winning more house seats. The next election we’ll see Republicans at every level trained to be better at lying, more able to disguise their views on women’s healthcare. I disagree with him that wingnut billionaires might be less inclined to spend their money on politics in the future. (What other investment provides the stratospheric ROI that owning two or three branches of government could provide?)
No. We’ll have to be ready a wealthy GOP fronted by more telegenic, facile liars.
When I look at all the money the Chamber of Commerce and Karl Rovegave to the Republicans, it’s hard to believe that so many Democrats survived it. Even in the House races, the Democrats got half a millionmore votes than the Republicans. I’m glad the corporate money didn’t bring more tangible victories because they might be less inclined to spend their money on politics in the future. But I think it is wrong to argue that the money didn’t have any effect. I believe Obama would have been able to campaign in more states if he hadn’t been getting blasted with Super PAC money in the battlegrounds. I think our victories would have been bigger in the House if we didn’t have to compete with unlimited corporate cash.
What do you think?