Campaign spending to increase by $1 billion

Despite a struggling economy, 2012 presidential campaign spending is predicted to hit an all-time record high, according to experts at the Center for Responsive Politics. The numbers are projected to come in at $6 billion, up $1 billion from the 2008 presidential elections. 

In the 2008 elections, President Barack Obama’s funds alone reached $730 million, and John McCain’s were $333 million, according to data from the Federal Election Commission.

To put these numbers in perspective, if this money had been spent on Big Macs rather than campaign expenses, the Big Macs would have wrapped around the earth 2.5 times.

Timothy Hellwig, an assistant professor in political science at IU, studies international politics and elections, as well as political systems, in regard to financial markets. He said that, with the weak economic climate of the country, the amount of money spent on campaigns could be off-putting to voters.

“I think the vast amount of money being spent on campaigns has negative consequences for American democracy,” Hellwig said. “I think that it might reinforce a stereotype that politicians in the United States are style over substance individuals.”

Hellwig also said that, due to America having very few limitations on campaign contributions by individuals, there may be gaps in the influence of the rich and poor.

“Because we allow unlimited contributions, it really creates a very tight connection between the wealthy and the politicians,” he said.

Hellwig said he thought the spending was a bit extreme.

“My personal reaction is that this is a real shame that so much money is being spent on political ads,” Hellwig said. “And in fact, in Florida I saw a statistic that 90 percent of these ads were negative ads, on top of that.”

The race for the presidency may have become more of a race for funds than a true test of who can uphold the best ideals or ideas, Hellwig said.

“I don’t think their ideas are that different,” he said of the Republican candidates currently in the running to be presidential candidates. “What distinguishes is not the ideas they have. It’s their ability to keep going.”

In other countries, there are set limits on campaign spending and airtime given to candidates by media outlets, Hellwig said. But given the Internet and increased access to watch American politics unfold from anywhere in the world, he said this might be changing.

“There’s a charge in Europe, too, though, that there is this Americanization of politics,” he said.

Candidates in other countries are beginning to participate in debates, become more personal with voters and raise more funding.

“These things all point to the fact that other countries may be becoming more like the United States in the way their politics are conducted,” he said.

This isn’t necessarily all bad, he said. These things also allow for more transparency in elections globally, as media coverage is increased and candidates start to take the time to meet voters.

Hellwig said many recent presidents have come from prosperous backgrounds, which voters should possibly pay attention to. He referenced Mitt Romney, who recently said he is “unemployed,” and although he is, he also sits on a substantial amount of personal wealth.

“I think that the recent revelation of Romney, his wealth, might be good in starting a national conversation about how politicians themselves seem to be very unlike the rest of the country,” Hellwig said.

— Hannah Smith