Follow the money: Musk, mega-donors and the most expensive election ever
The Republicans have built up a huge cash reserve that they hope will rescue them in the final days of the midterm election campaign. But Democrats have their own financial advantages.
For example, the Republican National Committee last week bought $US3.8 million worth of ads for Hinson’s campaign in Iowa. “This marks the first time on record that the RNC is running a co-ordinated ad buy with a non-presidential candidate,” AdImpact said in a recent memo.
The question, then, is whether fundraising by Democratic candidates – and the better bang they can get for their buck on TV and radio – can make up for the enormous cash advantage enjoyed by Republicans at party HQ and through their super PACs and mega donors.
To date, Republicans have vastly outspent Democrats in the eight most competitive Senate contests – by about $US300 million, according to AdImpact.
“Republicans have aired more broadcast TV ads than Democrats in every battleground Senate general election except Ohio,” the group’s latest report said. In Ohio, although Republicans spent tens of millions of dollars more than Democrats, Democrats aired 200 more ads.
Cooksey, the Republican strategist, says both parties are now facing diminishing returns because of the huge amounts of money being spent and the onslaught of advertising hitting voters. “Once you have four commercials during a single football game, there is very limited utility to buying a fifth.”
But Cooksey defends the behaviour of mega donors such as Musk. He says there’s no evidence that any amount of money will change the will of voters, “other than at the margins”.
Why do both parties raise and spend so much money, then? “It’s a bit of an arms race,” he says. “Part of it is to create equal and opposite opportunities to counter-message the other party.
“People are very motivated, and there’s a lot at stake in American elections. And it matters at the margin. No one would dispute that a campaign with $US100 million will have some marginal advantage over a campaign with $US1 million.”
Cooksey knows the sums seem gigantic, but he says they have to be put in context. If Republican tax cuts were worth $US1 trillion, for example, one would expect people to spend nearly that amount to make them happen.
“Given the size of the American economy, given what’s at stake legislatively in America, given the value of different policy outcomes in the real economy, it’s sort of surprising to me that people don’t spend more,” he says.
Nonetheless, Morgan Jackson, the Democratic strategist, notes the Republicans’ cash advantage is not moving the needle in key Senate races, including in his state of North Carolina, where the GOP has moved funds away from its candidate, Michael Whatley, to spend in Kansas instead.
“Money is not making the difference,” Jackson says. “I’ve seen Republican consultants who have said the more money they spend … the Democratic candidate continues to grow in the polls.
“The fact that we’re talking about Kansas today, Alaska, Iowa and Texas – states that were firmly in [the] Republican column for years and are now tilting blue this cycle – I think goes to show you that voters are desperate for change.”
Referendum on Trump: How the midterm elections workAnalysis: This Republican ad has outraged the US. It’s a warning for AustraliaTrump worship: What it’s really like inside midterm election ralliesPeter Hartcher: Trump is not only coddling Putin, he’s becoming PutinOpinion: Even Elon Musk’s billions won’t be able to save Trump
Get a note directly from our foreign correspondents on what’s making headlines around the world. Sign up for our weekly What in the World newsletter.
