Following the Outside Money

Flickr/<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/celinet/1429853058/">Celine Nadeau</a>

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

In elections past, a good indicator of whether a candidate would win was to look at how much money they had raised: the more money, the better their chances. In this, the first post-Citizens United election, that equation may have been pushed aside by a new math. Now, what may matter more is how much money other people are spending to elect—or defeat—a candidate. As David Corn wrote earlier today, independent advocacy groups have poured nearly half a billion* dollars into this election—much of it raised behind closed doors from undisclosed donors. 

So, have the “dark money” groups and super PACs gotten their dollar’s worth? A quick sampling of election results suggests that they did. In most of the races below, the loser was the candidate who had the most independent money expended to defeat him/her; conversely, winners generally had more outside cash spent to elect them. We’ll keep looking at the data after the election results are final to see if this trend holds up. If it does, it’s proof that this election really did change the rules of the campaign finance game.

Kentucky Senate: Rand Paul (R) defeats Jack Conway (D)

West Virginia: Joe Manchin (D) defeats John Raese (R)

Connecticut Senate: Richard Blumenthal (D) defeats Linda McMahon (R)

 

Florida Senate: Marco Rubio (R) defeats Republican-turned-independent Charlie Crist and Kendrick Meek (D)

Wisconsin Senate: Ron Johnson (R) defeats Sen. Russ Feingold (D)

California Senate: Sen. Barbara Boxer (D) vs. Carly Fiorina (R)—neck and neck as of 10:30 PM PST. Does the money predict a Fiorina win? 

 

Data via Sunlight Foundation

 

* Correction: A previous version of this article reported “nearly half a trillion dollars.”

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest