This year’s midterm election was the most expensive ever as candidates, political action committees and other political groups nationwide spent more than $3.7 billion on advertisements, TV spots, signs, mailers, get-out-the-vote efforts and the irritating robo-calls to attract voters or attack their opponents.
The midterms between presidential election years have historically low turnout in comparison, with less money spent on and by national and state candidates. Looking at the 2014 numbers, the 2016 presidential election — with no incumbent in the White House — looks like it will break all campaign finance records.
In our Congressional District 1, Democratic incumbent U.S. Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick and Republican challenger Arizona Speaker of the House Andy Tobin raised and spent a combined $4,092,737 on their respective campaigns, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
While that number may seem large, outside groups added $12,062,108 to the campaign, most notably the National Republican Congressional Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the conservative American Action Network, the conservative YG Network and the liberal Patriot Majority USA.
All that money poured in to win the majority of a mere 144,599 total votes, effectively meaning each vote in that race alone cost $111.72.
If that number seems high, consider this: Spending on Arizona campaigns coming from local, state and federal candidate campaigns as well as money from political committees inside and outside the state topped $490 million. With only 1,211,821 ballots cast, $404.35 was spent to sway the opinion of each and every Arizona voter.
Considering the power elected officials have to change laws, make policy and direct the course of municipalities, states and the nation, the surprise is perhaps that so little money is spent to win elections compared to what could be spent.
Most the campaign ads we saw this year didn’t discuss what challengers would do if elected or if incumbents were reelected, but rather focused on why the other candidate was unqualified, out-of-touch or a “tool” of “special interests” or tied too closely to his or her party bosses.
When trying to pitch a candidate to busy voters via a 30-second sound bite, ominous music, huge catchy fonts and a vague threat may be more effective than a loquacious block of text explaining why a proposed policy or new economic plan would benefit the poor, rich and middle class alike, preserve our rights and make our communities better places to live.
We are a society always in a rush, seemingly always out of time, so spending too much of it to decide our leaders is a hassle many of us feel we can’t afford. Is it any wonder then, that public approval of our government officials has fallen to such low levels when we decide who will lead us based on 30-second attack ads rather than face-to-face debates and well-argued policy statements distributed in print for voters to read over and research?
Remember that our founders constructed a nation before radio and television, where voters would choose leaders who had the best ideas — not the best smear campaigns — to benefit us all.
