iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Peter Dreier

GET UPDATES FROM Peter Dreier
 

Big Money Wins in Wisconsin: Walker Spent 88% of the Money to Get 53% of the Vote

Posted: 06/06/2012 8:26 am

Here's a headline you won't see, but should: "Scott Walker Spent 88% of the Money to Get 53% of the Vote."

Political pundits will spend the next few days and weeks analyzing the Wisconsin recall election, examining exit polls, spilling lots of ink over how different demographic groups -- income, race, religious, union membership, gender, party affiliation, independents, liberals/conservatives/moderates, etc -- voted on Tuesday.

But the real winner in Wisconsin on Tuesday was not Gov. Scott Walker, but Big Money. And the real loser was not Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, but democracy.

Walker's Republican campaign outspent Barrett's Democratic campaign by $30.5 million to $4 million -- that's a 7.5 to 1 advantage. Another way of saying this is that of the $34.5 million spent on their campaigns, Walker spend 88% of the money.

Walker beat Barrett by 1,316,989 votes to 1,145,190 votes -- 53% to 46% (with 1% going to an independent candidate).

Here's another way of saying that: Walker spent $23 for each vote he received, while Barrett spent only $3.47 per vote.

But the reality is even worse than this, because the $34.5 million figure does not include so-called independent expenditures and issue ads paid for primarily by out-of-state billionaires (like the Koch brothers, Sheldon Adelson and Joe Ricketts), business groups, and the National Rifle Association, which were skewed even more heavily toward Walker. Once all this additional spending is calculated, we'll see that total spending in this race could be more than double the $34.5 million number, that Walker and his business allies outspent Barrett by an even wider margin, and that he had to spend even more than $23 for each vote.

In other words, business and billionaires bought this election for Walker. The money paid for non-stop TV and radio ads, as well as mailers. There's no doubt that if the Barrett campaign had even one-third of the war-chest that Walker had, it would have been able to mount an even more formidable grassroots get-out-the-vote campaign and put more money into the TV and radio air war. Under those circumstances, it is likely that Barrett would have prevailed.

Pundits can have a field day pontificating about the Wisconsin election, but in the end it's about how Big Money hijacked democracy in the Badger State on Tuesday, and how they're trying to do it again in November.

Peter Dreier teaches politics and chairs the Urban & Environmental Policy Department at Occidental College. His new book, The 100 Greatest Americans of the 20th Century: A Social Justice Hall of Fame, will be published by Nation Books later this month. An earlier version of this article appeared on AlterNet.

 
FOLLOW POLITICS
Here's a headline you won't see, but should: "Scott Walker Spent 88% of the Money to Get 53% of the Vote." Political pundits will spend the next few days and weeks analyzing the Wisconsin recall ele...
Here's a headline you won't see, but should: "Scott Walker Spent 88% of the Money to Get 53% of the Vote." Political pundits will spend the next few days and weeks analyzing the Wisconsin recall ele...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 735
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (21 total)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
toot tootupthesnoot
08:11 AM on 06/18/2012
The union costs are astounding.
My relatives in 3 states who work in first responder positions kicked in "voluntarily" $100. The unions spent $500k per week for almost 2 years----as they should have---but it failed to sway the "non union" retirees on slim retirement incomes who are fed up paying for exhorbitant teacher health care plans.
Police and fire retirees DO NOT make out well---they should have been allowed to keep union representatives!
09:45 AM on 06/08/2012
Actually this is a sign that big money is losing. Big money got our current president elected. Want to talk about how much FREE media coverage the Obama camp got versus Mcsame? Big money is losing Peter, it's not winning and it won't win in November either. The American people do not want to live in GREECE. It;s gonna take allot more FREE media coverage and SOROS-HOLLYWOOD money to get the current president re-elected. Not sure there is enough of that big money to do it! Big money is losing, AMERICAN people are winning.
01:16 AM on 06/09/2012
This is actually quite funny. If Romney is elected, he is supporting the very policies that got Greece and the rest of the EU into trouble - AUSTERITY. They want to keep cutting government down to virtually nothing and then there will be no entity spending money in our economy. We will end up JUST like Europe and go back into Recession or worse yet, Depression. Yes, THAT'S what a Romney presidency will end up doing. But certainly don't take my word - or the word of the VAST majority of the worlds leading economists - vote for Romney and find out the hard way.

In fact, why don't you vote for Republicans to take over Congress and then you will see all of the social programs deleted. No more Medicare, no more Medicaid, no more Social Security. They want to privatize everything - and that will not work because there will be far too many people slipping into the cracks. That's not the America I was born to in the 60's. We moved forward and got better. Now we are moving backwards and becoming a third world nation. A vote for the Republicans of today is a vote for America's best days are behind us.

Sad, but true.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
Berettasskeeter
For what we are about to receive, may we be truly
04:04 PM on 06/10/2012
Austerity got none of them in trouble! Socialist programs are what got them into trouble. Austerity, trying to live within their means, got the politicians in trouble. The countries are going down the tubes, and Greece is leading the parade!
Semper fi
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
toot tootupthesnoot
08:05 AM on 06/18/2012
Not so-------the years and yrars and years and years of frivolity in their budgeting and failure to recognize that "other people's money runs out eventually ruined Euro folks"----do not come around with that that type of union tryp!
01:44 AM on 06/08/2012
So what is being said here is that the voters are too stupid to make up their own minds. Media and money win the election. Then shouldn't educators do more to educate their students about the terrible people that are allowed to buy advertising space and present a point of view....so would you be in favor of tests to determine if people are smart enough to vote....or maybe censoring what can be broadcast? Hmmm.....Is it possible that the voters not once, but now twice have decided that you can't spend more money then you have. Nothing is sacred....everyone has to cut back.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
editorjuno
Musician, wordsmith, accidental mystic, etc.
03:46 PM on 06/08/2012
"0 Fans" = Tro||
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
Berettasskeeter
For what we are about to receive, may we be truly
04:06 PM on 06/10/2012
So, you actually have nothing to add to the conversation, do you?! You could have merely saved the effort it took to type troll incorrectly!
Semper fi
01:22 AM on 06/09/2012
That's right, cut back. Stop the government from spending ANYTHING. And what will happen then? Oh yeah, NO ONE will be spending ANY money and we will slip back into Recession and then Depression. Doesn't the crisis in Europe teach us Americans anything? Austerity does not work. Cutting government spending - DURING a Recession - is counterproductive and more destructive. Once we are out of Recession and out economy is strong - THAT'S when you start cutting and adjusting taxes for the middle class. Right now, taxes for the top 1% won't hurt them AT ALL.I've heard so many say that "taxing the welathy won't help that much with the debt." That's right, but it would certainly help to keep school teachers and fire fighters an police on the payroll. And guess what? They will ADD to the economy by using that money and SPENDING it.

And we also need to institute a transaction tax for the speculating banks. That will add billions to the coffers and help to get us out of debt.

But cutting spending now? That would be crazy, utterly crazy.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
Berettasskeeter
For what we are about to receive, may we be truly
04:06 PM on 06/10/2012
Really? Who has proposed stopping ALL spending? Can you be specific?
Semper fi
01:49 PM on 06/26/2012
Not spending ANYTHING wasn't what I wrote. In our family when prices rise and our wages don't, we are forced to cut back. Are you proposing that people should spend instead. Isn't that what happened with people taking out loans (for houses specifically) that many people couldn't afford to pay back. I don't do see how it can work, to spend your way out of debt. It doesn't work at our house, it would get us in big trouble, and I would have no one to blame but myself.
Bladernr1001
Vote Libertarian
12:17 PM on 06/07/2012
That's because they do not count the money spent by unions for "volunteers". Factor that in and you will see that the unions spent more.
photo
tjmx0512
a proud vet
12:06 PM on 06/07/2012
Media Cites
Governor Walker won because he spent oodles of money.

FALSE

Over $63.5 million was spent. Walker about $30 million; Barrett about $4 million. Most Walker money came from out-of-state sources – The Republican Governors Association $4 million, most from out-of-state; Kochs $1 million; CofC $500,000. It appears Walker had a tremendous cash advantage. Not so fast. Unions spent an additional $21 million on the election.
In last falls elections Democrats outspent Republicans $23.4 million to $20.5 million.

Politico’s Glenn Thrush says there’s “only one paragraph you really need to read this ayem, courtesy of the Center for Public Integrity,” then quotes a paragraph talking about Walker’s biggest donors, that’s hackish reporting. The CPI actually adds: Campaign contributions tell only part of the story. National unions kept Barrett’s campaign alive by funding outside groups dedicated to defeating Walker. More than a year since Walker limited collective bargaining rights for most public employees, the nation’s three largest public unions — the National Education Association, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees , and the Service Employees International Union — gave $2 million from their treasuries and super PACs to two Wisconsin-based expenditure groups.

All of the donations to Walker and pro-Walker groups were not mandated. Big Labor dollars come from mandatory unions dues in most cases.

In terms of strict numbers, Walker spent some $30 million; Barrett and the unions spent $25 million. That’s not a 7-to-1 differential.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
OLEGAR
When you want to fool the world, tell the truth
10:05 PM on 06/09/2012
If you are going to count peripherals ( I question your figures on what the "Unions" spent) will you count the additional flood of outside money from the Citizens United that do not have to reveal anything? Come on now be fair. Walker's dodging the recall was only due to the huge amount of money poured into the process.
photo
tjmx0512
a proud vet
09:10 AM on 06/10/2012
If you delve into the statistics you will find that Citizens United's money is in the Walker total, the union money isn't. Also everyone is down on citizens united is if they are the only 527 supporting a candidate. Unions for decades were exempt from monetary restrictions because they used the number of rank and file to donate to the candidates that will give them the most money, benefits and work. Over 100 million was put into the Obama campaign directly and more was done as a 527 by the unions. Obama outspent McCain (who I didn't like or support) by almost four to one. Did money talk then? When you take an objective view of things and throw out ideology sometimes the answers are different. Remember even though there is a debate about the final number, between 37 and 39 percent of all union households voted for Walker. If the unions were that attractive why would almost 40% for the so-called "union buster"?
10:29 AM on 06/07/2012
All the money in China could not change the result in Wisconsin if there was not a problem. Trade Unions like Congress seemingly are unable to lower their expectations from time to time to fit the exiting economy.l
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
bobnsue6063
10:27 AM on 06/07/2012
I wish people would stop emphasizing the Union issue there is much more. Look at the facts... He promised 250,000 private sector jobs. No where near that. Cut over $800 million dollars from schools and now placed a cap on how much they can receive from property taxes. He cut the BadgerCare medical program. He than gave tax breaks to corporations which added $117 million to the defecit. He was supposed to recieve Federal funds to build a high-speed rail line from Milwaukee to Madison. He turned down the money. Many WI people who are aware of this are angry. The GOP, including Walker, felt women did not need to be payed equal pay for equal work. He quietly passed this legislation. They stated that women can not be as agressive they have children to care for. Women are too emotional. Women do not need the money men pay for everything. read www.unitedwisconsin.com/top-ten-reasons-to recall-scott-walker I think if we focused more on his overall performance and had more funds to educate the people on the facts this most definately would have had a different ending.
01:11 PM on 06/07/2012
As a Wisconsinite I totally agree. The republicans demonized the unions because they are easy prey, but that was only a small part of what this was about.
10:32 PM on 06/07/2012
no one is buying your b.s.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
editorjuno
Musician, wordsmith, accidental mystic, etc.
03:48 PM on 06/08/2012
What a devastating refutation.
07:25 AM on 06/07/2012
The United States has often been referred to as a Democratic-Republic. There, that should satisfy everybody.
05:28 AM on 06/07/2012
This was all over Walker's policies, namely Union bargaining rules. Will, even FDR said you can't have collective bargaining by government union employees its a "Conflict of Interest". And one more thing; Who said Democracy lost? We aren't a Democracy in the first place but a Republic and in our Republic majority rules and this was clearly a majority.
10:56 PM on 06/06/2012
I guess the $21 million or so spent by the Unions, to fight in this effort, doesn't count eh?
oilfield
large employer per obamacare
10:41 PM on 06/06/2012
to win they need another 250k votes or so......because obviously 900,000 folks that signed the recall knew who they wanted to vote for....how much money does that take? the 900,000 people could have each recruited one more phantom voter and had almost 2 million votes.....just 1 each.
the whole thing was shady.
10:34 PM on 06/06/2012
I think Mr. Drier would better served to wait for the final poll statistics. As of this morning, 38% of union households that went to the polls voted for Walker. In a few weeks the totals will be broken down and it will be interesting to see how many votes that 38% equates to in the overall count.
10:28 PM on 06/06/2012
This was nothing but an absolute fabrication. To get the figure that somehow Walker spent the vast majority of the money, you have to eliminate all the outside and union money spent during the year leading up to the recall when millions were spent to defame Walker and start the recall petitions. This so called professor just counted the money spent during the actual election. Walker's message won, not the money.
10:23 PM on 06/06/2012
Peter! Are you out there? Earlier I asked you some legit questions ... I’ve been patiently eating cheese and drinking beer while awaiting your comments.
10:19 PM on 06/06/2012
Peter Drier...your propaganda is sickening. George Soros would be proud of you.