Much has been made of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s successful re-election Tuesday, but many on both sides have stretched the importance of this election within the context of the general election.
Walker says the victory is a validation of his decision to stop public sector unions from bargaining collectively. In a speech Tuesday, he said, ‘Voters really do want leaders who stand up and make the tough decisions.’ Yet, he promised to continue on as governor by uniting the state.
Democrats and pro-labor activists decried the election outcome, insisting it was the result of the Citizens United ruling, which allowed super PACs to influence elections. Walker and the Democratic challenger, Tom Barrett, spent vastly different amounts of money. Walker spent $30.5 million, 66 percent of which was from out-of-state donors. Barrett spent $3.9 million, with only 26 percent coming from out-of-state donors, according to the Center for Public Integrity. The election was the most expensive in the state’s history.
Given the results, observers of politics want to use the election to forecast what will happen in the general election this November.
Liberal TV and radio host Ed Schultz, who spent many hours on his shows advocating for the pro-labor cause, spoke about the situation on his show. ‘It’s a real warning to Americans that money has now infiltrated into our political system like we have never seen before,’ he said.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) said the balance of power in America’s democracy has shifted. ‘If you are a billionaire, you can buy elections. You can buy politicians,’ he said in an MSNBC interview. Sanders argued billionaires could influence voting in Congress by threatening those who failed to vote in their favor with 30-second advertisements against them. Sanders’ assumptions that political advertisements are influential in voter decision-making are supported by research.
While some liberals may blame the election loss to the vastly different fundraising, other political observers claim Walker won because citizens believe in the idea of removing collective bargaining rights. There’s a much simpler explanation.
Elanor Clift, a Newsweek columnist, noted recall elections only happen in the rare instances when a politician has committed criminal acts or severe misconduct. Walker is the only governor who has survived a recall. Only two governors in the country’s history have been successfully recalled. Numerous attempts have been made, but there have been few actual recall elections.
More likely than financial or political viewpoints is the idea that voters simply wanted to give Walker a full four-year term. What, then, can we say about the presidential election after this unsuccessful recall?
Not too much – though that’s different from what many conclude. Conservatives believe the recall election is a sign of problems for the Obama campaign, which is trying to appeal to the working class. Wisconsin voted for Obama last year, but now some are wondering if challenger Mitt Romney can win the state.
Though many would like to conclude that the Wisconsin election foreshadows the general election in November, there’s a tendency to come to too many conclusions without evidence.
Instead of taking the recall election for what it was, there’s an attempt to link the two together. What is clear is that fundraising efforts will continue to play a major role. By all indications, this will be the most expensive election in the nation’s history.
Better for the country, though, would be an election based on competing ideas – not competitive spending.
Harmen Rockler is a senior newspaper journalism and political science major. His column appears weekly. He can be reached at horockle@syr.edu.