The world of shame-free money in politics

Thirty years ago, Nov. 4, 1996, the day before the general election and my first run for Congress, a good friend and I made one last campaign stop outside a state government office building, saying hello as folks headed home. 

During a lull, he asked what I thought about the race. Was I glad I had run? “Yes,” I told him. We ran a good campaign, and I thought I had a bit of a better chance of winning than my opponent. 

And what did my friend think? His answer surprised me. He wished I hadn’t run. He feared there would now be many people who would never know who I really was, that they believed much of the negativity aimed at me. 

I don’t remember much detail about the negativity of that campaign. Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform called me a “real Bolshevik’. A few years later he called John McCain a “gun-grabbing, tax increasing Bolshevik”. He apologized to McCain, but I never heard from him. 

When my opponent’s attack ads against me began, my campaign staff recommended we counter, but I resisted. I agreed to a poll two or three weeks later. I learned two things from the poll: the negative ads had hurt me, and I was blamed more for the campaign going negative than my opponent even though I had run no negative ads. The negativity worked.  

The outrageous, big bucks, negative crap-ads inundating us now make 1996 look like baby-cakes. What’s changed? In 1996, campaign finance laws placed more responsibility on candidates to fund campaigns. Third party money was more limited, had more transparency, and could not coordinate with campaigns. 

Today, over $11 billion has been spent on ads, more than in the 2024 presidential campaign. If Norquist were a billionaire, he could drop $50 million, $100 million or whatever he wanted to convince you I was a Bolshevik.

Former Arkansas Times Editor Max Brantley and others have written about the inaccuracies contained in the ads paid for by the Committee for American Leadership. Chris Jones does not support transgender surgery for children no matter what these ads say. Campaigns can be like contact sports: take a hit, get up, get ready for the next play. But sometimes things are said so outrageous, it is hard to stomach and not take personally. LIke being accused of hurting children.

In 2020, Governor Asa Hutchinson supported and did ads for French Hill. In 2021, Hutchinson vetoed the SAFE Act, the Save Adolescents from Experimentation bill. He considered it a “vast government overreach”, but he made clear that he did not support transgender surgery on minors. During the campaign for governor in 2022, Chris Jones said he agreed with Governor Hutchinson’s veto. Chris Jones has made clear that he also does not support transgender surgery on minors. The Committee for American Leadership used Jones’ agreement with Hutchinson’s veto as support for an ad to inaccurately state Jones supports transgender surgery for minors. 

[Editor’s Note: Gender-affirming surgery for minors is exceedingly rare. From a 2024 Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health study: “Our findings suggest that legislation blocking gender-affirming care among transgender and gender-diverse (TGD) youth is not about protecting children, but is rooted in bias and stigma against TGD identities and seeks to address a perceived problem that does not actually exist.”] 

Let’s review: Hutchinson supports Hill. Hutchinson does ads for Hill. Hutchinson vetoes a bill. Jones agrees with Hutchinson’s veto. Jones is unscrupulously attacked for agreeing with Hutchinson…who previously did ads for Hill.

Welcome to the world of shame-free money in politics. We need new terminology. Let’s call a $1 million donation what it is: a Billionaire’s Ballot.

And if any Arkansans were donors to this debacle, after this is over I look forward to their response to press inquiries.