World Crisis Online

Pundits looking ahead to the US presidential election in 2012 see an unstable political landscape of high unemployment, a Middle East in turmoil and a dozen-odd Republicans competing to challenge Barack Obama.

But they do agree on one thing – the spending by the two main candidates in next year’s presidential will not just beat the record amounts of money spent in the last poll four years ago, it will in all likelihood smash them.

“I think we are going to see the first $2bn presidential election in the nation’s history,” said Tom Daschle, a Democrat and former Senate majority leader. “Two billion may be conservative.”

Even as politicians throughout the US battle to slash spending on everything from police to health to environmental protection, they are preparing to spend huge amounts on themselves to be re-elected.

In 2008 Mr Obama and John McCain, his Republican opponent, together spent just over $1bn. If the consensus predictions about 2012 are correct, the cost of choosing a US president will have nearly doubled in just four years, during the worst economic slump in nearly a century.

Total spending depends on unpredictable factors, especially how long the fight is for the Republican nomination. “You have potentially 10 well-funded Republican candidates,” said Mr Daschle.

The cost of the presidential poll will be even greater once their spending is added in. The primaries and conventions, and spending by the parties and outsiders on behalf of the candidates, totalled $2.8bn in 2008, compared with $1.9bn in 2004, according to the Center for Responsive Politics in Washington.

The soaring cost of the presidential election may flow through to the congressional polls which are held simultaneously, especially as funding from groups outside the two main parties rises. Of the $4bn spent in the 2010 mid-term polls, a third higher than in similar elections in 2006, $1 in every $8 came from outside groups not controlled by the parties.

The biggest driver of soaring spending is Mr Obama’s decision to refuse public funds for his 2008 campaign, something that will almost certainly be matched by his Republican opponent in 2012.

Presidential candidates who take public funds under a system set up in 1976 receive a limited amount and they cannot accept other money.

Freed of the restrictions of public funding, Mr Obama raised $750m to get elected in 2008, seven times what George W. Bush raised in 2000 and twice the amount in 2004.

With $336m left after beating Hillary Clinton, Mr Obama’s war chest dwarfed the $85m available to Mr McCain, who relied on public funds for his campaign.

“This is the first campaign in US history where you will have both nominees outside of the public finance system,” said Michael Toner, a lawyer, Republican, and a former federal election commissioner.

Sitting presidents have always raised more money than they did first time around when seeking re-election, according to Mr Toner, who expects Mr Obama to accumulate about $1bn for the 2012 run for the White House.

“Any Republican who wishes to run in 2012 must seriously weigh whether he or she is capable of raising the $700m or more that will be needed to compete with Obama,” he said.

With a dozen or so candidates competing to run against the incumbent, the Republicans face a difficult task. After spending large amounts in primaries battling each other, they may have little money left compared with Mr Obama.

Another factor is the 2010 Supreme Court decision that ruled corporate funding of independent political broadcasts during election could not be limited.

But perhaps more important than that court decision are the growing funds controlled by outside groups, ranging from unions to powerful business lobbies.

The Obama campaign decided in 2008 that it would not accept money from outside groups. But the effectiveness of funds marshalled by Republican heavyweights such as Karl Rove and Newt Gingrich in the 2010 midterm poll means that the Democrats will use outside groups as well in 2012.

Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute said the rise of outsiders would have a big influence on the 2012 Senate and House races. “The Democrats will be worried about a two-front war,” he said. “You might have a very weak opponent and then some outside group comes along and defines you as a child molester in TV ads to people who don’t really know you.”

Above all else, according to one analysis, the razor-thin winning margin of Mr Bush against Democrat Al Gore in 2000 still galvanises both sides to spend. “Every political consultant will tell you that you can always spend more,” said Mr Toner, “on better registration, the get-out-the-vote, phone calls, and TV and radio.”