The American Debate: 2012's worst investments

If you watch a lot of TV - and, hey, who doesn't? - you may have noticed that your life has suddenly improved. You're no longer facing a ceaseless barrage of political ads sponsored by groups with innocuous-sounding names like Restore Our Future, American Crossroads, and Priorities USA Action.

They're blessedly gone, as are the fat cats who helped bankroll the priciest election season in history.

There's more good news: Most of them wasted their money on losers. To update Winston Churchill, never have so many expended so much for so little.

But the bad news is that they'll be back anyway.

If you thought 2012 was a money trough - the independent super PACs reportedly spent a combined $1.3 billion - wait and see what happens next time.

Granted, big money and power politics have been wedded forever. Back when JFK was being bankrolled by Joe Kennedy, he joked that his dad had sent him a telegram saying, "Dear Jack: Don't buy a single vote more than is necessary. I'll be damned if I'm going to pay for a landslide." Bob Dole, the longtime Republican senator, simply said, "Poor people don't contribute to campaigns."

But now we have a money bazaar unlike any other. The big donors have been virtually unleashed. Thanks to the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United ruling, it's now deemed protected free expression when rich people, corporations, and unions spend unlimited sums on behalf of their favored candidates. Virtually overnight, the resulting super PACs became the new normal. This is a healthy development only if you pine for an elective oligarchy.

What a waste

If this were a rational world, one might assume that the fat cats would be inhibited by the bad investments of 2012. And what a colossal waste of money it was.

Restore Our Future, a GOP-friendly super PAC that was financed by a small group of hedge-fund managers, energy executives, and other rich folks, spent roughly $150 million on Mitt Romney - who wound up getting fewer votes than John McCain in 2008, when Republican spirits were supposedly at low ebb. American Crossroads, a super PAC cofounded by GOP strategist Karl Rove, along with a Crossroads affiliate that could conceal the identities of donors, spent $300 million not just on Romney, but also on a slew of failed congressional candidates. And then we have Sheldon Adelson, the casino mogul who funneled $70 million into super PACs that rolled the dice and came up snake eyes - Newt Gingrich in the primaries, Romney in the general, and losing Senate candidates in Virginia and Florida.

Most of the "outside money" in 2012 was intended to benefit Republicans. The nonpartisan Sunlight Foundation has determined that two-thirds of it went to losers.

Moreover, the GOP fat cats wound up hurting their own party. Last winter, Adelson's largesse enabled Gingrich to stay in the primary race long after it was clear that he didn't have a prayer of winning the nomination; donor Foster Friess did the same for Rick Santorum. As a result, Romney had to spend more time pandering to the conservative base, at the expense of wooing the centrist voters he'd need in the fall. Worse, Adelson financed King of Bain, the pro-Newt documentary that savaged Romney's private-equity career and opened the door for team Obama to do the same.

In other words, money doesn't necessarily equal victory. And that alone should reassure those who fear its impact.

Arms race

But I doubt that the failures of 2012 will get moneyed Americans to close their checkbooks in the future. Remember, these are people who shrug off bad investments more easily than the average Joe makes peace with a bad restaurant meal.

Adelson is a classic case. When asked last week whether he regretted his election-year outlays, he replied: "That's how you spend money. Either that or become a Jewish husband." (Memo to Republicans concerned about the party's performance among women: Don't hire Adelson as a spokesman.)

So they'll double down and try to invest more wisely next time. And no candidate of either party will want to wait to be ambushed by a hostile super PAC; it will be wiser to woo donors who are willing to bankroll a friendly super PAC. Indeed, something like this happened in 2012: Obama initially opposed the super PAC option, but he changed his mind after assessing the threat. By the end of the campaign, his side had pulled nearly even in the super PAC money race.

And we'll soon see that race intensify. Every candidate will insist that unilateral disarmament is akin to suicide, and that endless fund-raising is a necessary evil, if only to keep pace with the enemy.

We heard the same basic argument during the arms race with the Soviets, but this time we're not so powerless. When the next political ad season rolls around, we can always turn off the TV.