Elections for Sale? Campaign Ad Spending in the USA and Arms Races

I. Some numbers

I read a series of letters to the Editor of The Globe and Mail this morning, all on the results of the US election, which continues to feature prominently in Canadian media, and certainly in the G&M. One letter-writer fumed that democracy had not triumphed in the recent US election, and went on to cite a number of reasons for believing that, including that ‘….the US Supreme Court has flooded US elections with corporate and special interest money.’

It seems to be a common belief among Canadians that because US elections involve the spending of so much more money than what is spent here in Canada on a federal election campaign, that winning elections in the US is all about outspending your opponent. That was certainly the attitude among the Canadians in the US Election discussion group I joined recently. A consequence of that need to outspend your opponent is the need to raise a lot of money, hence the belief that it is money, and those who have it, that matters to the outcome.

This prompted me to try to find out just how much was spent in this last US election, and by whom. The obvious place to go for such data is to the FEC, the US’s Federal Election Commission, as all spending by candidates, parties and political action committees (PACs) is supposed to be reported to this body. The FEC says that between Jan 1 of 2023 and Oct 31 of 2024, candidates for President and Congress spent $3.1B, the Party Committees together spent another $1.5B while PACs spent $7.3B, which adds up to just under $12B in total spending by all groups for US federal positions. That’s a lot of clams, and of course the good ol’ rule of 10 says that if Canadian spending is anything like in the same league, total spending in the next Canadian federal election (some time in 2025) will come to $US1.19B. Anyone care to bet it will be that high?

So far as I can tell, the FEC site doesn’t provide a breakdown of spending by party or candidate for the entire campaign. I found some tables that compiled spending up to June 30, 2024, but that ends well before the big spending spree just before Election Day. Which is not to say there isn’t a lot of info on the site. You can go in and find out that Nikki Haley for President, Inc, spent $49.58 on an Uber, date of the ‘disbursement’ being 12/31/2024, which is more than a month into the future, so…..I dunno what that means. Anyway, the site claims to have over 130 million records in its ‘disbursements’ database, all of which you can see, but I didn’t think I had the time to go through and add them up, and as a retiree I no longer have research assistants so I looked for another source.

A report from NBC news, dated Nov 8, reports on spending on advertising by the various parties and candidates, saying it is using data gathered by AdImpact. NBC reports that AdImpact reports as follows on the Presidential election:

“Overall, the Democratic campaign and pro-Democratic outside groups spent almost $1.8 billion, while the Trump campaign and pro-Republican outside groups spent $1.4 billion.”

So, the Dems outspent the Reps on this Presidential campaign by some $400million, and Harris lost. The story is similar in Congress, quoting again from the NBC story –

“The campaign for the Senate, which will be controlled by Republicans at the start of next year, drew about $2.6 billion in spending — $1.4 billion from Democratic candidates and outside groups and $1.2 billion from Republican candidates and pro-Republican groups.”

And……

“House races drew $1.7 billion in ad spending — $940 million from Democrats and $760 million from Republicans…”

It now appears the Republicans will have a slim majority in the House, also.

It leads me to wonder how evil all that money really is if it is not actually effective in winning elections. The Dems outspent the Reps on ads in all three cases, and lost. Of course, campaigns also spend on other things; the so-called ‘ground game’ of getting supporters to the polls, one way or the other. But I don’t think folks who worry about US elections being ‘bought’ worry about that. Helping folks get in their ballot is seen as virtuous spending, it’s all that ‘misinformation’ on TV and social media, financed by the evil rich, that is evil.

There is a substantial body of research showing that political contributions to Senators and Congressmen do not correlate with how they vote on legislation. That is, there seems to be no evidence that contributions from, say, the AFL-CIO or UAW to a legislator results in their voting more favourably on labour legislation, etc. One response to this is to note quite correctly that ‘no evidence’ does not mean that there is no effect. Finding good evidence that x has an effect on y, which is what most social science research tries to do, is difficult, and ‘no evidence found’ is a very common result of such research. (Research that finds ‘no evidence’ doesn’t often get published, which is why all you read about in the media are stories that include a sentence that starts ‘ a new study shows that….’. What those studies ‘show’ is very often baloney, but that’s a topic for another post.)

Another response to this particular ‘no evidence’ finding is that this is because what political contributions actually do is determine who ends up being elected to be a legislator in the first place. The 2024 election says maybe not so much, or at minimum, not always. The Dems outspent the Reps at every turn and ended up with a Republican president and Republican-controlled Congress. Their majorities in the latter are both very slim, and could be reversed in the 2026 mid-term elections, of course.

It will be interesting to see what happens in 2026. Who ends up controlling the House and Senate after those elections will be of interest, but also how the campaign fundraising and spending go. Will the Dems be able to again outspend the Reps, and will it get them control of Congress if they do?

Just for fun, I went back and checked on the last Canadian federal election in 2021, and discovered that the limits set by Elections Canada on spending by the various federal parties were set at $30Cmillion or less, depending on how many candidates each party ran, so that came to an overall ceiling of just under $150Cmillion in spending by all the federal parties combined. Canada doesn’t have PACs, but third parties do spend money in Canadian election campaigns. I could not find any figures for spending by such groups, but Canadian legislation prevents them from spending more than $150,000 in any one election, so their spending cannot add up to much, it would seem. In short, there is no way total campaign spending in the next Canadian federal election is going to get anywhere near $US1.19B, as that would translate into about $C1.6B.

Does that lower spending mean we get better electoral outcomes in Canada? What do you think? Electoral campaigns are certainly much shorter in Canada, a fact for which I know I am very grateful. But – would it be better or worse for all if parties and candidates were allowed to spend more? I’m betting no one reading this thinks it would be better….

II. A Hypothesis

One way to understand this high level of US campaign spending is to view it as an arms race, much like the one that Pepsi and Coke are involved in. That is, no one in North America can possibly be ignorant of the existence of, or the taste of, either Pepsi or Coke. Yet in 2019 Coca Cola spent $154million advertising just its Classic and Lite brands in the US, while PepsiCo spent $118million advertising just its Pepsi brand in the same year. Why so much for a product everyone already knows about? Answer: it’s an example of an arms race, like what happened in Europe before WWI.

The key characteristic for a strategic situation to be an arms race is that each party believes that it’s chance of winning is greater the greater is their own spending and the less is their opponents’ spending. Winning a war in 1914 was more likely the more a country spent on arms and the less its potential opponents spent. Check. The more Pepsi spends on advertising Pepsi the greater will be Pepsi’s sales, the more Coke spends on advertising, the less will be Pepsi’s sales, and conversely. Check. The more Trump spent on political ads, the more likely he was to win the election, but the more Harris spent the less likely he was to win, and conversely. Check. This all leads to each side in an arms race trying to outspend their opponent, and means that the more your opponent raises/spends, the more you feel you must raise and spend. Hence, ever-increasing fundraising and spending.

The logic of this all leads to the conclusion that both parties would be better off if a third party could come in and impose an outside limit on their spending. In the political case, that would mean a law limiting contributions or spending or both, such as Canada has. It is also the impetus, at least partially, for arms control agreements and treaties in the warfare example – although Hitler in the 30s showed that there is an enforcement problem with those. In the case of Coke and Pepsi, there is no third party, and if those companies sat down together and agreed to mutually limit their own ad spending, they would almost certainly get in trouble with US anti-trust authorities. That is illegal collusion, man.

A case in commerce where a third party did more or less impose an ad spending limit was in the early 70s, when cigarette ads were banned from TV by the US government.

This was done for health reasons, not to help out the tobacco companies, but I have heard that tobacco company stock prices rose after that ban, which would be outstanding proof they were in an arms race up until then. I haven’t been able to find any credible evidence of that rise – it happened back in 1970 – although it does seem to be true that overall industry spending on advertising dropped after the ban on TV ads. If anyone out there can point me at evidence about those tobacco stock prices, please do. I won’t hold my breath…..

Anyway, the analogy with political campaign advertising is pretty clear. There was no possibility that anyone in the US who might possibly vote was ignorant of the looming election or of either of the two candidates. The media provides unending streams of information about it all independently of any advertising by the two candidates and parties. Do all those campaign ads induce people to vote who otherwise would not, or is each campaign just worried about losing vote share to the other side if they don’t advertise? If so, then maybe Canada’s campaign spending limits regime is superior – at least for the political parties, and maybe for the voters. No one claims that the media were made better off by that 1970s TV advertising ban on cigarettes.

An attempt to limit campaign spending in the US would likely not get past the first amendment, but I’m betting the media would be at the front lines of trying to stop any such effort in any case. To them, after all, that $12B is revenue.