Campaign Finance in the 2012 Election

Since accurate data became available on presidential campaign finance, every election has been more expensive than the one before it. The 2012 election was clearly no exception to this rule, but it is far more difficult to discern how much money was spent on the 2012 election—and who spent it—than in any other election of the past 40 years. The 2012 election featured the first presidential race held since the Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision struck down limits on advocacy spending, and as a consequence we can measure only part of what was spent by outside groups. We do know, however, that measurable spending by nonparty outside groups totaled approximately $1 billion, a more than threefold increase over the 2008 total. ¹ There are many ironies to this flood of unregulated money, however. During the presidential primaries, the spending of outside groups eclipsed the spending of the candidates themselves, arguably prolonging the Republican race and benefiting candidates with little appeal to traditional individual donors. President Barack Obama raised less money than he had in 2008, and although Mitt Romney raised more than John McCain had in 2008, he raised far less money than some had predicted. The results of the election also do not provide clear evidence that outside spending made a difference to the election outcome. Republicans and Republican-leaning groups outspent Democrats and their allies in the presidential race’s competitive states, in competitive Senate races, and in competitive House races, yet the Democrats gained seats in each chamber. This does not mean that money did not matter in 2012, but means only that at some point there may be declining returns to campaign spending, particularly when much of that spending is devoted to television advertising.