Money & Votes: The Road to President

With bumper stickers reading, “Giant Meteor 2016: just end it already” and “Nobody in 2016: Let’s regroup in 4 years,” it’s obvious at least some of the American population is not pleased with their options for president. Despite the disenchantment, there still will be a new leader elected – but will the money determine the outcome?

The race to the White House via contributions shows Republican Donald Trump lagging behind Democrat Hillary Clinton.

Daniel Ponder, political science professor at Drury University, said that could be partly due to Trump getting a late start in the race.

“Trump has come on lately in terms of how much money he has been able to raise, but it’s still a long way from her. Clinton has always had a major advantage in small donors,” he said.

Trump’s total through Oct. 19 of nearly $248 million is about half of Clinton’s $498 million, according to Federal Election Commission filings.

One proven political expert has predicted the disparity with campaign financing this election won’t matter: Trump is going to win, according to Allan Lichtman, a professor of history at American University.

Author of “Predicting the Next President: The Keys to the White House,” Lichtman has called the outcome of every presidential election since 1984.

In Missouri, Trump’s contributions weigh in at roughly a third of his opponent, with Trump receiving $1.2 million versus Clinton’s $3.9 million.

Greene County Democratic Party Executive Director Skyler Johnston said Clinton’s field operations run in the traditional way with headquarters, phone banks and ad buys.

“However, her social media and new media departments are the largest in campaign history,” he said, referring to apps, email blasts and YouTube content. “She is building on Obama’s online model and expanding it tenfold.”

Economic impact
Danette Proctor, Greene County Republican Central Committee chairwoman for the past seven years, said Trump’s campaign is unlike any political campaign she’s seen.

“There are no boots on the ground,” she said. “He is getting a lot of his publicity through the news.”

The bulk of campaigning observed is yard signs, she said.

As for cash on hand, Clinton weighs in with $62.4 million compared with Trump’s $15.9 million.

Johnston and Proctor agree the impact on the local economy is minimal from the presidential election.

According to FEC records through Oct. 19, Trump had not spent any money directly to businesses in the Springfield area. The Clinton camp spent roughly $50,000, almost entirely to Sunrise Communications for strategic consulting in addition to funds for printing, phone and travel costs.

But some area business owners are staunchly in their candidate’s corners – and using their money to walk the walk.

Loren Cook II, vice president of industrial fans manufacturer Loren Cook Co., said his $5,400 contribution to the Trump campaign was not so much in support of Trump as it was anti-establishment – against a lifetime politician getting into power.

“I think this might be the last campaign I contribute to because I am just so disenfranchised with both parties,” he said.

Cook acknowledged Trump’s polarizing conduct, which elicits an emotional response in people. “But he’s got some ideas and plans, and he has that business savvy,” he said.
 
The trend of fewer contributions for Trump continues from within Springfield city limits: just over $47,000 to Trump and $95,000 to Clinton through Oct. 19.

Bryan Fisher, an attorney with Neale & Newman LLP, helped give Clinton the local fundraising edge with a $3,050 contribution.

“I think, hands down, she is the most qualified person to ever seek the office of the president in my lifetime. Especially this year, given the alternative, it is an easy decision,” Fisher said.

Dark money
While individual donations are known to fund advertising, a recent study shows questionable monies are surfacing.

Political advertising purchases by undisclosed groups – aka dark money – rose to 880,000 ad buys in 2012, up over tenfold from 80,000 in 2000, according to an analysis during that time by the Wesleyan Media Project and the Center for Responsive Politics. Through Aug. 1, spending for Democratic and Republican elections from outside groups – those not directly linked to candidates – totaled 32.5 percent of all ad buys, an all-time high, according to the report.

Additionally, 73 percent of outside groups’ advertising for all parties can be attributed to super PACs, which have been around since 2010. Although accounting for less advertising, politically active nonprofits, which have a history that extends back to 2000, are the largest source of growth for dark money in elections.

One example is the mystery surrounding a $2 million donation a few months ago to Missouri Republican gubernatorial candidate Eric Greitens, according to published reports.

The American Policy Coalition gave the sum to federal political action committee SEALs for Truth, and the same day, the latter moved the money to Greitens. Since the contribution took place three days after state disclosure deadlines, information about donors didn’t have to be released until three months later – after Greitens had won the Republican primary. Little is known about the American Policy Coalition. The group’s website, AmericanPolicyCoalition.com, reveals nothing more than a welcome page with a banner of the coalition’s name and an America flag. But reports have connected the funding to David Langdon, who filed a contribution form with the FEC.

Langdon was featured in a Politico article in May titled, “Meet the Suburban Ohio Lawyer Behind the Right’s Dark Money Making Machine.”

Springfield businessman Cook, who donated $25,000 to Greitens’ campaign, said he would be asking the outsider gubernatorial candidate questions if Greitens was in his office.

“It’s really amazing how he’s able to generate the funds, but you would hope that he would be transparent or generate it the right way,” Cook said.  

Two Supreme Court cases – Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC in 2007 and Citizens United v. FEC in 2010 – loosened campaign finance restrictions and, the Center for Responsive Politics study claims, have led to the rise in ad spends by nondisclosing groups. According to the study, 501(c)(4) and 501(c)(6) groups are behind the increase in dark money.

[[In-content Ad]]