5 ms·

The Washington Post has been tracking everyone, including corporations, contributing to super PACs. All told, they funneled $1.1 billion in 2018: https://www.wa

The Washington Post has been tracking everyone, including corporations, contributing to super PACs. All told, they funneled $1.1 billion in 2018: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/politics/superpac-donors-2018/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/politics/superp... More than a billion dollars. Think about that.

tptacek 8y ago
For all the money the Adelsons poured into this House election, they didn't do so hot. They fought mostly for historically red districts, and from buys for CA-10, CA-39, CA-45, IL-12, IL-13, KS-2, MI-6, NC-2, NM-2, NY-19, NY-22, NV-3, VA-7, TX-7, and WI-1, they lost (or have probably lost) the CA-10, NM-2, NY-19, NY-22, NV-3, VA-7, and TX-7. Similarly, this cycle was defined by an overwhelming fundraising advantage for Democrats. The Democrats did well, but they did not do well proportionately to their financial edge. There were races where we just dominated the GOP --- on the field, in the air, with endorsements, and all that backed by money --- and the GOP won anyways. Money helps, but it doesn't "decide" elections.
- Tomte 8y ago
  Did any of the candidates of the Great Slate win? I googled a few results shortly after your elections and didn't find any, but I think the count wasn't official yet in most states.
  - tptacek 8y ago
    We're likely to take ME-2, but none of the other races. Which is fine; the Slate races were chosen specifically to be long shots that were underinvested by the party.
- pcwalton 8y ago
  Republicans are fairly likely to lose CA-45 as well as late/absentee/provisional ballots come in.
rayiner 8y ago
A billion dollars is nothing in an economy of 325 million people. That’s half of what Colgate-Palmolive spends each year advertising toothpaste and dish soap. It’s about three days of Google ad revenue. It’s $5 per person of voting age, which is about Facebook’s ad revenue per user in a month. Think about that: has Facebook ever convinced you of anything? Because that’s 12x the advertising intensity of PAC funding. The causal inference the article draws is insane. California voters rejected more rent control by a 60-40 margin. Facebook can’t convince more than 0.9% of users to even click on each ad, but somehow a fraction of the level of advertising changed peoples’ minds about rent control?
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  I think the problem is that when 100 million people contribute $10 to a cause they basically don't get heard but one person contributing the same amount will have all doors opened and be listened to.
  - rayiner 8y ago
    We’re talking about PAC spend, which doesn’t go directly to candidates. A billion in small donations to an issue-focused PAC is indistinguishable to a single $1 billion donation. It’s a billion dollars available to conduct advertising for the issue.
    - greglindahl 8y ago
      100 million people motivated enough to contribute $10 each to a cause indicates a huge base of support. It's not just the money, it's a signal of engagement.
    - maxxxxx 8y ago
      Don't you think that someone tells the candidates where the PAC money is coming from?
    - scoggs 8y ago
      > We’re talking about PAC spend, which doesn’t go directly to candidates. A billion in small donations to an issue-focused PAC is indistinguishable to a single $1 billion donation. It’s a billion dollars available to conduct advertising for the issue. Now, I could be 100% wrong because I'm not looking at any data to back up what I'm stating next but from what I remember what you say above is not 100% true. From the time the campaign starts until the campaign ends and the election is complete the PAC's $ can not go directly to a candidate. The problem is what happens to / with that money after the campaign is over? From what I've heard that money can go directly to a candidate (or now official-elect) with no strings attached. Of course, I do not have a citation handy, but I've never heard of leftover PAC $ being reimbursed to those donating nor have I ever heard of candidates or a PAC donating the leftover PAC $ to charity.
mpalczewski 8y ago
Washington Post is owned by a billionaire
- catacombs 8y ago
  Yes, but Jeff Bezos doesn't control the news coverage.
wu-ikkyu 8y ago
I wonder how much more money/assets/favors are exchanged under the radar through offshore/shell companies

tptacek 8y ago

For all the money the Adelsons poured into this House election, they didn't do so hot. They fought mostly for historically red districts, and from buys for CA-10, CA-39, CA-45, IL-12, IL-13, KS-2, MI-6, NC-2, NM-2, NY-19, NY-22, NV-3, VA-7, TX-7, and WI-1, they lost (or have probably lost) the CA-10, NM-2, NY-19, NY-22, NV-3, VA-7, and TX-7. Similarly, this cycle was defined by an overwhelming fundraising advantage for Democrats. The Democrats did well, but they did not do well proportionately to their financial edge. There were races where we just dominated the GOP --- on the field, in the air, with endorsements, and all that backed by money --- and the GOP won anyways. Money helps, but it doesn't "decide" elections.

Tomte 8y ago
Did any of the candidates of the Great Slate win? I googled a few results shortly after your elections and didn't find any, but I think the count wasn't official yet in most states.
- tptacek 8y ago
  We're likely to take ME-2, but none of the other races. Which is fine; the Slate races were chosen specifically to be long shots that were underinvested by the party.
pcwalton 8y ago
Republicans are fairly likely to lose CA-45 as well as late/absentee/provisional ballots come in.

rayiner 8y ago

A billion dollars is nothing in an economy of 325 million people. That’s half of what Colgate-Palmolive spends each year advertising toothpaste and dish soap. It’s about three days of Google ad revenue. It’s $5 per person of voting age, which is about Facebook’s ad revenue per user in a month. Think about that: has Facebook ever convinced you of anything? Because that’s 12x the advertising intensity of PAC funding. The causal inference the article draws is insane. California voters rejected more rent control by a 60-40 margin. Facebook can’t convince more than 0.9% of users to even click on each ad, but somehow a fraction of the level of advertising changed peoples’ minds about rent control?

maxxxxx 8y ago
I think the problem is that when 100 million people contribute $10 to a cause they basically don't get heard but one person contributing the same amount will have all doors opened and be listened to.
- rayiner 8y ago
  We’re talking about PAC spend, which doesn’t go directly to candidates. A billion in small donations to an issue-focused PAC is indistinguishable to a single $1 billion donation. It’s a billion dollars available to conduct advertising for the issue.
  - greglindahl 8y ago
    100 million people motivated enough to contribute $10 each to a cause indicates a huge base of support. It's not just the money, it's a signal of engagement.
  - maxxxxx 8y ago
    Don't you think that someone tells the candidates where the PAC money is coming from?
  - scoggs 8y ago
    > We’re talking about PAC spend, which doesn’t go directly to candidates. A billion in small donations to an issue-focused PAC is indistinguishable to a single $1 billion donation. It’s a billion dollars available to conduct advertising for the issue. Now, I could be 100% wrong because I'm not looking at any data to back up what I'm stating next but from what I remember what you say above is not 100% true. From the time the campaign starts until the campaign ends and the election is complete the PAC's $ can not go directly to a candidate. The problem is what happens to / with that money after the campaign is over? From what I've heard that money can go directly to a candidate (or now official-elect) with no strings attached. Of course, I do not have a citation handy, but I've never heard of leftover PAC $ being reimbursed to those donating nor have I ever heard of candidates or a PAC donating the leftover PAC $ to charity.

mpalczewski 8y ago

Washington Post is owned by a billionaire

catacombs 8y ago
Yes, but Jeff Bezos doesn't control the news coverage.

wu-ikkyu 8y ago

I wonder how much more money/assets/favors are exchanged under the radar through offshore/shell companies