Spending $100 million in the Senate campaign is obscene
Published October 22, 2014
by Doug Clark, Greensboro News-Record, October 22, 2014.
Just say Hunt-Helms to someone who’s watched North Carolina politics for a long time and you’ll get a reaction.
Probably something like “ugh.” Or “disgusting.”
The 1984 U.S. Senate race between Jim Hunt and Jesse Helms was the most expensive and most negative political campaign this state had ever seen.
Until now.
The $26 million spent in that race three decades ago, mostly on TV attack ads, set a national record.
Yet, allowing for inflation, that’s comparable to only about $60 million in today’s currency — a figure already surpassed in the battle between Kay Hagan and Thom Tillis.
How does $100 million grab you?
The Charlotte Observer came up with that figure after analyzing as much spending as it could trace by the two campaigns and independent groups on their behalf.
Our state has been slimed by political spending. It’s obscene.
There are differences from the 1984 race. Hunt and Helms were political giants. A two-term Democratic governor collided with a two-term Republican senator.
Hagan, a first-term Democratic senator, and Tillis, a two-term Republican state House speaker, both have been successful in their political careers, but no one would confuse them with Hunt and Helms.
Both Hagan and Tillis came into this campaign, incredibly, at low points in their political standing. Hagan is tied to the policies of an unpopular president and Tillis to those of an unpopular legislature.
Hunt and Helms, on the other hand, had to make the voters dislike each other through a barrage of assault ads.
Hagan and Tillis have been beating each other below ground. Or surrogate groups have done it for them.
The drumbeat of attack after attack has been relentless. I don’t know anyone who watches television who isn’t sick of it.
The amount of money spent is appalling. The wealthy individuals and special-interest groups that are bankrolling it — many of them not publicly disclosed — must have a very perverse value system. I can think of better things to do with disposable income in a state where one person in five lives in poverty. When charities need funds to provide food, clothing, medicine, housing, transportation and other basics for the poor; when deserving students can’t afford college tuition; when the sick go without health care, it’s grossly disturbing to literally watch $100 million spent on a political campaign.
Especially a campaign that will leave us with a “winner” whom half the electorate has been prompted to dislike.
If we could have a better world, each candidate would choose a number of charities and ask his or her supporters to give their money to them. The voters could let the amount of good done by each campaign guide their selection. The money would produce real benefits, and everyone would feel a lot better about politics!
What’s ironic is that all this money is meant to influence such a small portion of the electorate.
Let’s face it. Probably 90 percent of the state’s voters made up their minds about this race on its first day and haven’t budged. The 10 percent in the middle have been in play, and all the millions of dollars spent on TV ads are intended to win them — or drive them from the other candidate.
They should turn off their televisions and go outside.
Some experts say negative ads work. They did in 1984. News & Observer political columnist Rob Christensen, who covered the campaign, recalls that Hunt started with a 25-point lead. Helms closed it by waging a Senate filibuster against the Martin Luther King Jr. national holiday and running a series of ads asking “Where do you stand, Jim?” Hitting Hunt as a moderate prevaricator was a highly effective tactic.
Helms won that epic battle and was re-elected twice more, retiring in 2002 after 30 years in the Senate. He died in 2008. His legacy is mixed at best. He's remembered mostly for exploiting racial divisions during his long career.
Hunt came back to win two more terms as governor, in 1992 and 1996. Now 77, he’s a respected elder statesman.
There’s a chance that Hagan and Tillis can bounce back from this bruising campaign, but unless there’s a public backlash against the ugly tone of their $100 million campaign, North Carolina may not recover. Records are made to be broken, and this spending mark will be eclipsed again and again.
Sen. Richard Burr is up for re-election in 2016. We have no idea yet what a terrible senator he’s been, but someone will spend a lot of money to tell us.
