Scott Walker Spent 88% of the Money to Get 53% of the Vote

[Octafish]

Money at the roots: The Taming of Evil, painting by Renata Palubinskas.

Scott Walker Spent 88% of the Money to Get 53% of the Vote

by Peter Dreier
Published on Wednesday, June 6, 2012 by Common Dreams

Here's a headline you won't see, but should: "Scott Walker Spent 88% of the Money to Get 53% of the Vote.

Political pundits will spend the next few days and weeks analyzing the Wisconsin recall election, examining exit polls, spilling lots of ink over how different demographic groups -- income, race, religious, union membership, gender, party affiliation, independents, liberals/conservatives/moderates, etc -- voted on Tuesday.

But the real winner in Wisconsin on Tuesday was not Gov. Scott Walker, but Big Money. And the real loser was not Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, but democracy.

SNIP...

Here's another way of saying that: Walker spent $23 for each vote he received, while Barrett spent only $3.47 per vote.

CONTINUED...

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/06/06-0

How's that Citizens United thing helping ya, plutocrats?

Better than 5-4?

[Kadie]

1. Thanks for this.

I was wondering what the $$$ per vote was.

[Octafish]

8. Incredible difference there.

I'd like to see money taken out of the political equation -- especially when it comes to elections.

[bullwinkle428]

2. They'll spend 100% of the money to get 50.000000000001% of the vote -

sadly, it's all about "ROI" (return on investment).

[Octafish]

9. Absolutely. Speaking of ROI...Did you see what a competent Lobbyist will bring in?

ROI on lobbying

In 2004, companies got a 22,000 percent return on investment. And no, that wasn't my keyboard stuttering. From the abstract:

"In this paper we use audited corporate tax disclosures relating to a tax holiday on repatriated earnings created by the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 to examine the return on lobbying. We find firms lobbying for this provision have a return in excess of $220 for every $1 spent on lobbying, or 22,000%. Repatriating firms are more profitable overall, but surprisingly, profitability is not a predictor of repatriation amount. Rather, industry and firm size are most predictive of repatriation. Cash on hand, a proxy for ability to repatriate, is not associated with the repatriation decision or the repatriation amount."

SOURCE w links: http://www.news-record.com/blog/2012/01/09/entry/roi_on_lobbying


Some more details on the science:

Measuring Rates of Return for Lobbying Expenditures: An Empirical Analysis under the American Jobs Creation Act

Abstract:

The lobbying industry has experienced exponential growth within the past decade. The general public, the media, and special interest groups perceive lobbying to be a powerful mechanism affecting public policy. However, academic research finds inconclusive results when quantifying the rate of return on political lobbying expenditures. In this paper we use audited corporate tax disclosures relating to a tax holiday on repatriated earnings created by the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 to examine the return on lobbying. We find firms lobbying for this provision have a return in excess of $220 for every $1 spent on lobbying, or 22,000%. Repatriating firms are more profitable overall, but surprisingly, profitability is not a predictor of repatriation amount. Rather, industry and firm size are most predictive of repatriation. Cash on hand, a proxy for ability to repatriate, is not associated with the repatriation decision or the repatriation amount. This paper provides compelling evidence that lobbying expenditures have a positive and significant return on investment.

CONTINUED w complete paper: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1375082

[sabrina 1]

18. The people need lobbyists. The people need to incorporate. If we can't lick them, then we need to

beat them at their own game. Corporations are persons? If the people incorporated, we would be the biggest Corporation in the world and we would be TOO BIG TO FAIL.

It's time to get creative, obviously working within the system isn't working out for the people, so let's use THEIR system, and beat them with their own weapons. There is not better way to see them run screaming to the USSC to try to overturn the legislation that created the biggest Corp in the history of the world, one which all theirs put together, cannot defeat.

Just trying to think of ways to stop this. Sorry Octafish, but it's clear we cannot, as individuals, compete with them.

[Octafish]

19. That's what's so criminal about Corporations getting skin in the political game.

According to the crooks on the Supreme Court, money is equated to speech. How unfair is that? Compared to normal people, corporations are a lot better equipped at pooling large quantities of money. If it weren't for the bought and paid for media, it'd be amazing to see how the Supremes manage to keep out of jail, despite their sordid record of siding with big money over the national interest.

Now they've bought just about every honest avenue for political reporting-- from the tee vee down to the daily newspapers. It was the plan, the rise of Flush Limpnut. Remember all the screaming Karl Rove and his crew did when Move On bought an ad or two back in 2004? In answer, Rove and his side bought blocks of air time to run Swift Boat Liar propaganda. Of course, Corporate McPravda did their part in providing free talking heads to give weight to the lies.

The trickle down bean counter David Stockman reported that most of the wealth created in history has been made since 1981. The lion's share of that, thanks to fiscal policy of most every president since pruneface ronnie has helped direct that newly minted wealth into the pockets of the richest of the rich. Seven-eights of all the wealth in history, since 81.

I love your idea, sabrina 1, for banding together to fight on more equal footing. We've got to try.

[phantom power]

3. I think it's helping the plutocrats just fine. That 88% was pocket change.

[Octafish]

10. The family Koch springs to mind...

From Monday:

Koch's Americans for Prosperity Campaign Draws Some Relatively Small Crowds--from Wisconsin and Elsewhere

by Will Dooling — June 4, 2012 - 5:14pm
PRWatch.org

Americans for Prosperity (AFP) has spent as much as 10 million dollars in Wisconsin in recent months influencing the potential recall of Governor Scott Walker, whose administration has been backed by AFP. Walker's election in 2010 was funded in part by AFP's chairman, David Koch, for example through the Koch Industries PAC and a one million dollar donation to the Republican Governors Association (RGA). AFP has claimed its multi-bus, multi-city tour across the state the week before election day and millions in ads and other expenditures have nothing to do with the election.

One of the many questions being raised about AFP is what, if anything, its massive investment in retaining the status quo is buying.

The Washington, DC-based special interest group -- co-founded and -funded by Mr. Koch, a New York City-based oil billionaire -- has gone all-out in the final week of the recall, spending on ads, rallies, buses, canvassers, and phone banks. The group, a non-profit, keeps repeating its claims to the press that it is simply informing Wisconsin residents about economic issues, not engaging in election activities reserved for politicians, parties, and PACs -- all of which report both their donors/donation amounts and all their campaign expenses to the public for accountability, unlike AFP.

Despite million-dollar ad buys out of Walker's own $30 million campaign war chest -- buttressed by millions more in ads bought and paid for by outside groups, such as RGA, the National Rifle Association, Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, Americans for Prosperity and another non-profit, the MacIver Institute -- Walker is not crushing his opponent, Mayor Tom Barrett, according to recent polls. One poll puts the race at a dead heat, 48.7 to 48.6, and another has Walker up by the poll's margin of error (3%), which means Walker has actually lost ground since January as the state's television stations have become awash in millions in political ad revenue.

CONTINUED...

http://www.prwatch.org/news/2012/06/11571/kochs-americans-prosperity-campaign-draws-some-relatively-small-crowds-wisconsin-

Tee Vee loves politics.

[99Forever]

4. K&R

[Octafish]

11. ALEC played a role in Wisconsin

Although one wouldn't know it from the tee vee or noosepapers:

NO DISCLOSURE: WSJ, Fox Defended ALEC Without Noting News Corp. Is A Member

May 25, 2012 2:53 pm ET by Matt Gertz
MediaMatters

EXCERPT...

Beginning April 18, the Journal has published two editorials and two op-eds praising ALEC and attacking its critics. These include:

•On April 18 the Journal editorial board stated that ALEC was being subjected to "a remarkable political assault" with critics "bullying big business," "playing the race card," and "demonizing opponents and trying to shut them down."

•In a May 2 op-ed, Center for Competitive Politics chairman Bradley A. Smith criticized the "boycott culture" of progressives opposing ALEC and concluded that "blacklists--never a healthy part of political debate--endanger the very commerce that enriches us all."

•In a May 8 editorial, the Journal cited the "smear campaign" against ALEC as a "campaign to intimidate companies from exercising their free-speech rights."

•Wendy Gramm and Brooke Rollins of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, an ALEC member, wrote in a May 15 op-ed that the group "is under sustained attack from organizations that fundamentally disagree with its commitment to limited government and economic freedom" and that their "real crime" is that "it has been an effective, engaged facilitator of good governance and liberty-oriented legislation in statehouses across the country."

In none of those pieces did the Journal disclose that their parent company News Corp. is an ALEC member.

CONTINUED...

http://mediamatters.org/mobile/blog/201205250012

PS: Like her pinhead husband, Phil Gramm, Wendy Gramm's an ENRON angel from her government service days.

[chowder66]

5. Thinking about the money...

The consensus is that this was more about the actual recall itself. Voters were not supportive of a recall in general.
The 11 point margin for Obama speaks to this as does all of the analysis.

Many voters had just elected Walker, then a couple of months in when things went south the voters became emotional and pissed off (for good reason) but they shot out of the gate a little too fast. They ran the same official that Walker had just beaten too.
Many voters rely on the normal election process and use the next election cycle to make their feelings known. These voters, as do many, feel that the recall is for serious misconduct, not policies one side disagrees with even if it is based on lies and dirty tricks, etc. (before anyone thinks I am one of these people, I'm not. I would have voted with the Dems to recall Walker if I lived in Wisconsin, but I am just one person, who does not live there).

It seems to me that the administration was particularly smart in keeping a certain distance from this. They most likely knew that there was only the slightest chance to win (if even that) based on historical data. Instead of putting in the tens of millions of dollars... they were careful about thier money, saving it for the election in November and where there are better chances of success. And, they gave support on the ground in ways that meant a lot to many Wisconsin voters. They used their resources and some money. Not all of their money and resources. Smart.

So the repubs spent a crapload of their money on this race just to get an outcome that was most likely to happen anyway according to the consensus I mentioned. Not smart. It may have helped to a slight degree but most likely it did not help in any real significant way.
It probably didn't change much other than deplete thier reserves. Plus the dems picked up the one seat tipping the scale (while the legislative session has ended for the year at least they got something that could be significant... for their effort/money).

Citizens United needs to end because we as a nation cannot afford to keep throwing in (hand over fist) our hard earned cash into these races to compete against people with money to burn. We have to do it smarter and Hopefully the focus from Democrats will be to vote, to get out the vote and to educate on the importance of voting.

[Octafish]

13. Thank you for spelling out that side of the story, chowder66.

Your analysis helps me understand the unfortunate reality of trying to dump an unindicted crook. If the television and radio stations actually acted as the independent watchdogs of government, instead of serving as the sideshow barkers for the plutocrat class, we might be able to get some fire to go with the smoke.

Regarding the President's decision to stay away: It may be a case of a smart politician choosing to use his capital wisely. It also, to me anyway, seems like a guy who wants to keep himself above the fray, as well as a case of a campaign afraid of being associated with a losing candidate and issue.

Obama has had three years to use the bully pulpit to support progressive ideals. He's just getting around to insisting on dumping the disastrous Bush tax cuts. Consider the health of Wall Street and the record profits for the shareholders while millions are getting tossed out of their homes and millions more penured by college debt before they even start a career. If he can't see the logic of having more governors in the Democratic column, from future re-districting to running clean elections in the fall, the President may have a hard time carrying Wisconsin and a whole bunch more states in 2012.

[gkhouston]

16. I don't recall hearing this "voters weren't supportive of a recall" argument before last night.

Apparently this belief rests on the exit polls. I'm wondering if the Obama/Walker voters who weren't supportive of a recall will turn out to be the "values voters" of this election.

[Doctor_J]

6. Is this supposed to be good news?

Who cares how much they spent??? Walker is still the Governor. CU is working just the way they wanted it to - they maintained the Governor's mansion by spending money and suppressing the vote.

WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU CELEBRATING?????

[Octafish]

7. I'm not celebrating anything. Why do you think I am?

I'm pointing out the power of money. I care because most of what passes for people's knowledge these days comes from the television.

How many people do you know who read books every day? Or a newspaper?

Oh well. Sorry to get you upset. Thank you for reading.

[Doctor_J]

15. Here

How's that Citizens United thing helping ya, plutocrats?

Better than 5-4?

It's helping them just fine. You posted this as if the fact that each vote cost them a lot of money will somehow disillusion them

[Octafish]

17. You read something into it that's not there.

The plutocrats I called out are the ones who spent all that money to help Walker.

They're the same class who paid for the Supreme Court decision that gave the election to Bush.

Where's the celebration in Walker surviving the recall?
Where's my desire to help the plutocrats?
Where's my morale boosting message?

If it's not in my words or between the lines, it must be in your head.

[Major Nikon]

21. It should disillusion them

Because that model is unsustainable in a national election. The GOP is not going to have an 8-1 spending advantage in November.

[HangOnKids]

12. I Love Renata Palubinskas

Her art is so striking, and perfect for this piece. The creature has a face that looks very much like W. And no, I am not joking.

[Octafish]

14. She is a treasure and her work a window to greatness.

It may seem like something out of Hieronymus Bosch,
but her work helps us see how this world is different from the ultimate reality.



Her Schnook understands the game (and the My Pet Goat Boy).

PS: Thank you for understanding what the point of the OP is.

Know your BFEE: Money Trumps Peace. Always.

[countryjake]

20. K&R!