Super-PACs are Overrated

With Rick Santorum finally putting his beleaguered campaign to rest, the official 2012 presidential campaign has begun. However, unlike previous campaigns where pundits begin focusing on candidates individual war chests as a barometer of their strength, this election brings us something different: Super-PACs.  At first glance, these organizations seem terrifying.  They are able to circumvent previous campaign finance regulations by raising unlimited amounts of funds from corporations, unions, and individuals without legal limits to spend on promoting or denouncing candidates. They are able to breathe new life into dying campaigns by spending fortunes on advertising for a candidate. They allow fringe special interests groups to bank role a presidential candidate that would normally not be able to last three weeks in a primary season. It has even been argued that Super-PACs have the ability to buy the presidency. But my question is, will these Super-PACs, with all of their money, have any influence on the outcome of the current presidential election? I would argue that it will not, and I have history on my side to prove it.

If you break down every presidential election starting from Roosevelt vs. Hoover in 1932 up to Obama vs. McCain in 2008, the candidate who spent the most money lost over 50% of the time. In other words, you have a better chance at winning the presidency if you spend less money than your opponent does. If you look at the period between 1932 and 1976, the candidate that spent more money lost seven out of nine times. Since then, the candidate with the most money has one five out of nine times.

After looking at these numbers, it is easy to assume that the influence of money carries more weight in recent elections. This is not necessarily true. In 2000, George W. Bush outspent Al Gore by a small margin and won the presidency based on a Supreme Court decision. Bush, however, did not do well enough to win the popular vote of the American people. In 2004, Bush was re-elected to the Presidency after narrowly outspending John Kerry by 375 million dollars to 352 million dollars.

During the 2008 election, Barack Obama outspent his opponent, John McCain, by an enormous margin, but then ran into a serious problem during his campaign: What do you do with all of the money? Obama discovered that if he used all of his money to buy advertisements promoting his virtues and admonishing his opponents, the electorate would eventually get tired of him and be less inclined to vote for him, much like how music fans tire of a song that is played constantly on the radio. Obama realized that he needed to hold off on spending his enormous war chest because it could be the detriment of his entire campaign.  

How does all of this relate to Super-PACs? The current opinion on Super-PACs is that they are able to give serious financial backing to candidates they support, and thus, potentially buy them the Presidency. If history tells us anything, this will not be the case. If Super-PACs spend too much money, they will face the same dilemma of over exposure that Obama faced in 2008. As we have seen thus far in the current 2012 election, Super-PACs have not learned this lesson and have spent large sums of money on candidates (over $100 million has been spent in 2012). The result: we will see an election where a significant portion of the electorate will be burned out on the campaign and decide to stay home on election day. This is disastrous to candidates trying to woo independent voters, like Mitt Romney who trails Obama in current polling numbers.   

Just like it has been in the past, it will be the candidate who runs a smart campaign and is able to speak to voters using clear and nuanced messages that will earn the title of Commander-in-Chief in November.