In 2010, at the height of the Tea Party wave, Rick Scott, a wealthy hospital mogul with few discernible political skills and some serious legal skeletons in his closet, decided to run for Governor of Florida. He poured untold millions of his own money into the effort. He beat a mediocre GOP establishment figure in a bloody primary, won the general election by a nose, and has been Governor ever since.
During the 2015-2016 GOP primary season, Jeb Bush raised and spent a ridiculously large amount of money, only to fall flat on his face, while Donald Trump primarily relied on free media time to build up a substantial lead in the delegate count.
What conclusions can we draw from these examples about the impact of money in American politics? The correct response, obviously, is that the answer is not simple: it depends on how the money is used.
Here are my observations:
1. Money is useful to create images and narratives when there is no previous political record to rebut. Hence, the success of the Scott campaign.
2. Money can be very helpful to reinforce existing negative impressions of a candidate. Negative ads that attempt to destroy entrenched views of a candidate will be less successful unless it is clear that they are accurate and fair.
3. Money can’t change facts. Jeb Bush couldn’t escape the shadow of his brother’s administration, no matter how much money he spent.
4. Free media time, if you can get it, is more valuable than paid time. One of the unfortunate legacies of the Trump campaign is that it will encourage future candidates to say even more outrageous things in the hope of attracting free media attention.
5. Campaign contributions are a small part of a much larger picture. Money spent by wealthy individuals and corporations on lobbyists and education campaigns can, and frequently do, ultimately have more impact on legislation and rulemaking than campaign contributions. That is why the Koch brothers use their money the way they do, and why it is a mistake for Sanders to focus so intensely on contributions in his “revolution.”