RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Sherman writes: "The most important lesson the billionaires are learning this year is that they aren't much better at politics than Karl Rove. Well, not true. There is one billionaire who seems to have contemporary Republican politics figured out."

Jeb Bush. (illustration: Brian Blanco/Burazini/Getty Images)
Jeb Bush. (illustration: Brian Blanco/Burazini/Getty Images)


Republican Billionaires Just Can't Seem to Buy This Election

By Gabriel Sherman, New York Magazine

14 December 15

 

ou’d think buying an election would be easy. This is, after all, the rough pitch that political consultants deliver when persuading donors to part with their money. (It’s also the primary theme of Bernie Sanders’s presidential campaign.) The formula traditionally goes like this: Out-raise the competition, bludgeon them with attack ads, and watch the votes roll in. In the five years since the Supreme Court enshrined unlimited campaign contributions to organizations not directly affiliated with candidates, money has poured into the political system. And yet spending the cash haul effectively has never been more difficult.

Take the 2012 contest between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. Celebrated political strategist Karl Rove assured a murderers’ row of Republican megadonors that, with enough funding, his super-pac could put Romney in the White House. “I had every expectation we would be the victors,” says Home Depot co-founder Kenneth Langone, who gave half a million dollars to Rove’s American Crossroads. In the closing weeks of the campaign, Crossroads circulated a top-secret presentation to a small group of billionaires that projected Romney could win a “mandate” if they contributed an additional total of $25 million to fund a “surge” of negative ads. A handful ponied up, and on Election Night, they assembled in Boston certain they would be watching their investment pay off.

Instead they watched Rove’s infamous Fox News meltdown as their $117 million grubstake went up in smoke. To many of the billionaires it felt like a mugging. A few days after the election, New York hedge-fund manager Daniel Loeb, who’d helped finance Rove’s surge, tried to sue Crossroads and Fox News for misrepresenting the facts. “Loeb felt this was like an investment bank committing fraud on a road show,” a friend of his told me. After conferring with a securities lawyer, Loeb discovered that there are no investor protections in politics. He never filed a suit. (And Loeb declined to comment.)

Rove’s 2012 crash is having profound effects on the 2016 Republican primary. To begin with, George W. Bush’s Brain is no longer considered much of a brain. “I gave Rove $500,000. What did I get for it? Nothing!” Langone told me. Two of Rove’s most generous 2012 funders, Texas billionaires Bob Perry and Harold Simmons, have since passed away, and their heirs have turned off the cash spigot. “Everyone is still shocked Romney lost,” says Simmons’s widow, Annette. “I haven’t committed at all.” So far this year, Crossroads has raised just $784,000, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Rove insists he’s still a player. “We’ll be involved in the Senate races,” he told me. “Depending on who the presidential nominee is, we may be involved in that, but that’s a long way off.” What Rove is not is anywhere near the center of the Republican Party. “But for his perch on Fox News, Karl would be in political Siberia,” says a top Republican strategist. “The going joke is that he must have a picture of Roger Ailes in his underwear to keep his contract.”

It’s not just that Rove is personally marginalized. Donors have awakened to the realization that topflight consultants can earn millions from campaigns regardless of whether they win. “It bothers a lot of people that politics has become a cottage industry. Everyone is taking a piece of this and a slice of that,” says California winemaker John Jordan, a former Rove donor. “Crossroads treated me like a child with these investor conference calls where they wouldn’t tell you what was really going on. They offered platitudes and a newsletter.”

Working under the assumption that they can support a campaign better themselves, donors are building their own organizations, staffed by operatives who report to them. “A lot of people who felt betrayed in 2012 set out to build political structures,” says Kellyanne Conway, president of the pro–Ted Cruz super-pac Keep the Promise I, which is backed by hedge-fund billionaire Robert Mercer. Mercer is a prime example of the new breed of activist donor. This presidential cycle, he has donated more than $30 million to a quartet of pro-Cruz super-pacs. A computer scientist by training, Mercer is also part owner of a political data firm called Cambridge Analytica, which boasts on its website that it employs “psychographic profiling” to recruit voters. As a result, Mercer’s pacs have shunned the traditional strategy of saturation TV coverage. Instead, Mercer is focused on targeted radio buys, digital outreach, and field organizing.

The savviest GOP candidates have capitalized on this shift. In fact, Cruz’s campaign fund-raising apparatus seems designed to let donors roll up their sleeves. Cruz contributors can specify how they want their money spent, much in the way universities allow benefactors to earmark their donations for a new science wing or aquatics center. “If you’re a donor, you can say, ‘I want to see this money used for Iowa,’ ” one strategist told me. “It’s a way to entice donors. They look at it like fantasy football.”

The new billionaire-backed operations style themselves as models of superior sophistication. During the last Republican primary, Sheldon Adelson bankrolled Newt Gingrich’s campaign essentially by writing blank checks with little or no oversight. Compare that to the super-pac funded by Chicago Cubs owner Joe Ricketts, who has his own political staff and demands accountability. “I’m used to saying the Ricketts’ spend their super-pac money like it’s their own money — because it is,” the family’s political adviser, Brian Baker, told me.

Or look at the network being built by Elliott Management founder Paul Singer. In 2014, Singer created the American Opportunity Alliance, a group of roughly 40 Republican financiers who gather regularly for secret meetings with candidates. This fall, Singer threw his weight behind Marco Rubio and urged his members to do the same. In the general election, Singer will be a player with America Rising, the opposition-research firm headed by Romney’s dark-arts wizard Matt Rhoades. Instead of funding TV ads, Rhoades’s group offers Singer more predictable returns: It is narrowly focused on digging up dirt on Democrats, for example by sending video trackers to events in order to build a library of unflattering material.

It’s all about retaining control. In October, billionaire investor Carl Icahn announced he was launching a $150 million super-pac to lobby for corporate tax reform. “At the risk of being immodest, we have one of the best records on Wall Street. And I like doing things myself,” he told me. “Too many cooks spoil the soup.”

John Jordan now supports Republican candidates through his own super-pac, which applies the lessons he’s learned from winemaking. He, too, is backing Marco Rubio. “I know really well how to sell things. I make my own ads,” Jordan said. “The quality of ads produced by most of the ad-makers is just so bad that they’re ineffective. Have you looked at Jeb’s ads? They’re terrible! It’s unforgivable.”

Perhaps Bush is the perfect case study: The candidate who has underperformed the most is the one with a 2012-style campaign, who steered all his major donors into one super-pac. That organization, Right to Rise USA, is run by the grizzled strategist Mike Murphy, who succeeded in bundling a $100 million war chest and is now finding himself on the receiving end of donor backlash. Last month, for instance, a group of major Bush supporters held a conference call to vent about Murphy after he outlined his strategy in an interview to Bloomberg Politics. “These guys got rip-shit,” said one person briefed on the call.

But the most important lesson the billionaires are learning this year is that they aren’t much better at politics than Karl Rove. Well, not true. There is one billionaire who seems to have contemporary Republican politics figured out. “This is no longer a meteor going through the sky,” Langone told me, observing Donald Trump’s dominance over the race and sounding just shy of panicked. “He’s been in the lead 116 of 120 days.”


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+9 # Anne Frank 2015-12-14 11:07
Where has Sherman been the last 67 years? Republican billionaires already have bought the election for Hillary Clinton. And their Zionist wars and repression go on and on with no end in sight other than a thermonuclear holocaust.
 
 
+7 # HowardMH 2015-12-14 13:23
I think this explains it much better than I ever could:

The United States is not a democratic republic. This is not analysis coming from the far left. President Carter has recently stated the U.S. is “just an oligarchy.” An oligarchy is a “government by the few, especially despotic power exercised by a small and privileged group for corrupt or selfish purposes.”

Noam Chomsky, perhaps the best known left-wing commentator, has said, that “our system…is not a democracy but a plutocracy.” A plutocracy is a government of, by and for the wealthy few. Certainly, Chomsky's assertion is conveyed by the short Represent.us video above.

http://www.examiner.com/article/viewpoint-explaining-why-the-united-states-needs-a-revolution
 
 
+7 # Sweet Pea 2015-12-14 11:44
Elections are often bought and paid for by the biggest donors. It has been that way for years. What makes anyone think that it will change!
 
 
+3 # PABLO DIABLO 2015-12-14 11:56
Time for the Supreme Court to step in and "select" Trump to be sure Reagan, Bush, Clinton, W.Bush, Obama policies as President are continued until they work.
"our" government has served the interests of people with money since day one. A few people make money off of war so they can buy politicians who promote war.
"Greed is good" --- Ronald Reagan.
WAKE UP AMERICA. A huge military build up, more than "daily" mass shootings = a sign of a declining empire
 
 
+9 # Helga Fellay 2015-12-14 12:50
The author is wrong when he says: (It’s also the primary theme of Bernie Sanders’s presidential campaign.)" First of all, it's not the primary theme of Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign. It seems the author has never listened to Bernie Sanders, who hammers away unflinchingly about economic inequality and the loss of democracy in America. If Sanders also tries to get small donations from supporters, that is because he cannot run on empty. The Democratic party is not supporting him as they have already anointed Killary, and main stream media has declared a total blackout on Sanders (example the latest Time Person of the Year issue, in which several pages are devoted to Donald Trump who is only a carnival barker and will never be nominated, but not one word about Sanders). No matter how many tens of thousands of people attend Sanders' rallies, millions of voters still have never even heard of him, and his only chance to introduce himself will be by buying expensive TV ads. I assure you that none of them will be attack ads - only ads to get his message out. Very disappointed in this article, RSN. You can find better writers if you try.
 
 
0 # gdsharpe 2015-12-15 12:43
Helga-
Well, isn't the "big money in politics" a big part of the loss of democracy in America? Is that not a big part of Sanders' message?
Another big part of that loss of democracy is that too small a proportion of voters actually vote. At the very least, election day for national elections should be a national holiday so everyone has a reasonable opportunity to vote, most will not have to go to work.
In my opinion, I think we should be like Australia, make voting mandatory by law. They get something like 95% participation.. . if one does not vote one pays a heavy fine.
One other point, when you do vote, plan in advance and get an absentee ballot. The electronic voting machines are too easily manipulated and offer no paper trail/record. An absentee ballot is paper and much harder to manipulate or change.
 
 
+5 # angelfish 2015-12-14 16:28
If enough REAL Democrats register to Vote in the Primaries and get Bernie Sanders the Nomination, he WILL be our next President. So. Get OFF the couch. REGISTER, then VOTE if you have ANY interest in saving what is left of our Democracy. If you don't, TRUMP is the alternative. I shudder to even contemplate THAT eventuality!
 
 
+8 # RMDC 2015-12-14 18:04
The melt down of these billionaire republican funders is just good to read about. It is nice to see Rove, Adelson, and Singer sucking ass. But it was very funny to see the greedy Gingrich loot many millions out of Adelson. In the end, all of the republicans are on the take. Singer steals from poor nations, and political candidates steal from him.

Rove was lucky in finding GW Bush who was too stupid to see what the game was and so just took orders. It is not likely he will find anyone else like that, unless it is Jeb Bush who is just like his brother and father -- dumb as a stump.

All the money in the world won't attract well qualified candidates. They are not attracted by money. Sanders is exhibit #1. He's not after money. what the billionaires do attract are the 14 clowns now on the republican ticket.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN