Cory Merry

The Florida GOP Primary race is over and Mitt Romney won both the race and the 50 delegates entitled to him for the win. Had Florida not moved up its primary date it would have been 100 delegates but when one displeases the RNC one must be punished apparently.

In order to gain these 50 delegates it is estimated that Mitt Romney or, more specifically, one of his Super PAC's (Political Action Committee) spent upwards of $15,000,000 and ran some 13,000 ads both for Romney and against Newt Gingrich. This gives the delegates a worth of $300,000 each. It also equals 260 commercial ads per delegate. Of the 775,014 votes cast for Romney it means $19.35 was spent per primary vote. In contrast Newt GIngrich ran only 200 or so ads and spent less than $4,000,000 to lose Florida. However, Newt did get 533,117 votes from primary voters. His cost per vote was better than Romney's coming in at just $7.50 per vote. But alas, Gingrich received zero delegates, a complete waste of money from that stand point.

All of this means little until you look at history. Where Mr. Romney's teams have spent $15 million on Florida's GOP primary this year, John McCain spent only $11 million for the entire primary season in 2008. This huge increase in spending has come while the country is in the worst economic climate it has scene since the Carter administration. How?

I'll tell you how, the answer is freedom, freedom of speech that is.

How many of you remember the 2010 State of the Union address from President Obama? Don't feel bad, most people don't remember most speeches by presidents unless they have a really catchy phrase or a hot topic item in them. We all remember "ask not what your country can do for you..." and "Dec. 7, 1941, a day that will live..." or the "shinning city on a hill" speech. All in all most presidential speeches are forgettable, and Obama is no different. But in 2010 his speech got some serious coverage for a statement he made directly to the Supreme Court Justices who always sit up front. It was also memorable for Chief Justice John Roberts response in real time. Oh, there it was, I saw a flash of remembrance on some of your faces. Our situation with spending by PACs is directly connected to that exchange just over two years ago.

On Jan. 21, 2010 the Supreme Court handed down the following decision:

"Holding: Political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, and the government may not keep corporations or unions from spending money to support or denounce individual candidates in elections. While corporations or unions may not give money directly to campaigns, they may seek to persuade the voting public through other means, including ads, especially where these ads were not broadcast." http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/citizens-united-v-federal-election-commission/

At the time few made a big deal about the decision. Some liberals were excited because they would no longer have to hide their association with the trade unions. Some conservatives were excited because they no longer had to hide their association with business entities. And of course, some liberal warned about business spending millions on conservatives and some conservatives warned of the same with the liberals and the trade unions.

Both were right and both were wrong on all counts. How were they right? Unions and corporations are funneling big dollars into these non-candidate ran PACs. And those who warned this practice would sway elections one way or the other appear to be right yet again with this week's Romney win. But they were wrong about it two weeks ago when Romney spent to high heaven in South Carolina, outspending Gingrich and his PAC 3/1, yet Gingrich won that one. The amazing part of the anti-PAC argument is that money has always influenced elections. It is what we as Americans do, we throw money at those we like and refuse it to those we don't. And corporations and unions are both full of people and people have freedom of speech. We don't have national funding of elections, although many say we should have it.

But like anyone with a brain I'm starting to think this money thing might have gotten out of hand. In 1972 the press went wild with the horrid thought that Tricky Dick Nixon had become the first presidential candidate, incumbent or challenger, to spend $1,000,000 in donated dollars to get himself elected. In 2008, then Senator Obama, spent $750,000,000 in his successful run for the job that pays $400,000 a year with a $50,000 expense account. Sure, you get a few cars and a private plane to boot, but come on... For comparison Obama got 69,499,428 votes which cost him $10.79 per vote. Nixon got 47,168,710 votes while spending just $.021 per vote. I guess that's why they call it "putting in your two cents"?

In the end, does how much is spent make that much of a difference? It is expected that President Obama will close in on the $1 billion mark in this 2012 election season. No doubt Romney or an upset Gingrich head to head with the President will bring nearly the same amount to the game. With unions and corporations allowed now to play in the game, although on a different field, there is little chance of us missing a $2 billion race in 2012 when all is tallied up.

Maybe the naysayers were right? Maybe there's just too much money in the game now-a-days.

But what would I know; I'm jut an Average American.