Myth #6: Supers Follow the Money

Two months ago, the Center for Responsive Politics issued this report attempting to demonstrate a "cash-for-votes" trend between presidential candidates and Super Delegates.

This report is misguided, and fails to acknowledge a number of important elements that should have been factored in the findings.

One fact is true: Senators Clinton and Obama gave money to candidates in 2006 to support re-election efforts.  Most members of Congress did.  Democrats raised and spent money on behalf of others in 2006, it was part of our strategy to win back Congress.  Republicans did it, too.  In fact, John McCain's PAC doled out money almost entirely to federal candidates.

(And a pet peeve: the report states that Republicans do not have Super Delegates.  Let me again reference you all to Myth #2 which states the Republicans DO in fact have Super Delegates.)

One component was left out: Senator Clinton was putting funds towards a re-elect in 2006 while also building a presidential campaign organization for 2008.  Senator Obama was not up for re-election, and though some had flirted with the notion of an Obama run for President, he had not begun building an organization - thus he could donate funds more liberally.  This fact significantly skews the distribution of money.

Another component was left out: further undermining the case is that it is unlikely that either Clinton or Obama were operating under the impression that Supers would play such a large role in the 2008 nomination.  Apart from that obvious notion, there is also the fact that Obama was not completely sold on the idea of running until the after Fall 2006 elections, and the fact that Clinton's strategy to the nomination rested on her sweeping in an overwhelming majority of wins on Super Tuesday.

Finally a little bit of return on investment: this is another item to take into consideration.  Looking at the Super Delegate endorsements at the time that this study was released (since no doubt the arguments were based on the state of the race at that time), less than half of the money Clinton and Obama gave translated to an endorsement.  For Clinton, I'm told that her supports equals 46.3% of her donations, whereas for Obama it hovers around 1/3 of his contributions.  These appear to be underwhelming figures when attempting to make a cash-for-votes argument.

Comments

[Brian Dell]

That doesn't really explain, though, why seven out of eight elected officials who received more money from Clinton have committed to her while four out of five of the superdelegates who received more money from Obama are backing him, and in every case in which superdelegates received money from one candidate but not the other, the superdelegate is backing the candidate who gave them money.

[Scott K]

Brian, I actually think that's fairly easy to explain... senators contribute money to people that they have a good working relationship with and that they feel would be more likely to support the same ideals. That type of correlation would also lead to these people being more likely to support you as a presidential candidate. Bottom line is, correlation does not imply causation.

[Bilbo]

I am of the same mind as Mr Super on this issue and agree with Scott that correlation does not imply causation. But, wherever there is a lack of transparency in our government it is right for the people to question it.

For my part, I worry more about politial-favors-for-votes than cash-for-votes. But, in a party system it is naive to think that votes will be based only on merit and the wants/needs of constituents. I don't think you can say that tit for tat is a myth. It may be only a small part of the superdelegate equation, but it's there. I'd much rather focus the money question on lobbying than endorsements.

Much of America has been asleep or hiding under blankets in fear. As more of us wake up or turn on the lights to see the monsters the more transparency matters. Faith in government is gone (as it should be), but hopefully we can get back to trusting and verifying.

[MKSinSA]

I'm pretty much a realist and accept that this article speaks to low returns on investment rather than motives. The motives, meanwhile, are to curry favor with colleagues and built alliances. Would this were not the case? Indeed. It is and I just call it politics. No harm, no foul.