A year has passed since the U.S. Supreme Court, in its Citizens United decision, allowed corporations and unions to make unlimited independent expenditures to support or oppose federal candidates. Depending on your point of view, the court’s ruling either (A) upheld important First Amendment protections or (B) thrust a knife in the heart of our democratic system.

We’ve all read the headlines decrying the decision and heard end-of-the-world proclamations from the court’s critics – especially many Democrats who felt the ruling would benefit Republicans.  But has anyone taken the time to measure the actual impact of Citizens United on the recent mid-term elections?

The answer is “yes,” and thanks to researchers at Bowdoin College, Wesleyan University and Washington State University, we are beginning to understand how the decision is affecting political spending.

In a paper that impressed me with its content and title – “The Citizens United Election? Or Same As It Ever Was?” – Michael M. Franz of Bowdoin carefully examines the assumptions made about the court’s decision and analyzes thousands of campaign commercials to test each theory.  One of his major conclusions is that campaign ad spending increased dramatically in 2010, with $110 million spent by interest groups. But the growing portion of total spending by interest groups didn’t reach record levels (2000 was a big year as well), and it wasn’t necessarily because of the Citizens United ruling.

The effects of the Supreme Court decision have to be viewed in context, writes Franz:

In addition, he points out the resource advantages of Republican-leaning interest groups cannot solely be attributed to Citizens United.

The 2010 returns clearly show that corporations did not buy the elections, writes Franz. “In fact,” he adds. “No for-profit corporation even directly sponsored a pro-candidate ad in 2010. Moreover, there were more competitive House races this past cycle than any in the last generation. Democracy survived, and even thrived, one might argue.”

FEC Chairwoman Cynthia Bauerly agrees. Speaking at the Public Affairs Council’s National PAC Conference this week, she said that the practical impact of Citizens United has been “somewhere in the middle” of two extreme predictions: “Either the sky was going to fall and all corporations would control elections forever more, or nothing would happen at all.” Data collected by the FEC show a rise in independent expenditures, but it’s difficult to discern how much of it resulted from the Supreme Court ruling.

(Bauerly, it should be noted, previously served as legislative director for Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who once said the Citizens United decision was an effort by the Supreme Court to "predetermine the outcome" of the November elections.)

A second study comes from Erika Franklin Fowler of Wesleyan University and Travis N. Ridout of Washington State University. Using the same database as Franz, the researchers look at advertising trends leading up to the mid-term elections and conclude that “2010 did not live up to the flood of interest group activity many predicted.”

Nevertheless, they point out, political advertising was particularly negative during the past year – and some of this resulted from growth in independent spending. While independent groups used to be much more likely than political parties to place positive campaign ads, they now are nearly as negative as the RNC and DNC in their tone.

With all these variables to measure, the picture of political spending post-Citizens United may never be completely clear. Yet these studies help to prove Bauerly’s point that, while the ruling definitely had an impact, the sky certainly did not fall.

We will learn more, says Franz, when the 2012 elections come along and Democrats lack the same incumbent advantage they had going into 2010. It’s possible the Republican advantage in interest group-sponsored advertising will widen. On the other hand, President Obama is poised to raise a record amount of money for his re-election effort – and, writes Franz, the White House has signaled to supporters that they should try to compete with Republican groups. In short: the campaign finance arms race will continue, but it’s anyone guess who will have the advantage.

Meanwhile, there’s no ignoring the fact that campaign commercials, whether sponsored by candidates, parties or interest groups, are likely to become even more negative.

But, thanks to Fowler’s research, at least we now know how to spot them so we can switch the channel. Among other things, her analysis of 4,576 campaign commercials measured how often different types of background music were used. Here’s a tip: If a commercial starts with ominous music, there’s a 72% chance you’re about to hear an attack ad.

Comments? Email me at http://pac.org/contact/blog