TightWind is written by Kyle Baxter. Stay Hungry. Stay Foolish.

Since Democrats have realized November’s election isn’t going to end well for them, Democrats are now arguing it is because of shadowy, corrupt money flowing in to support Republican candidates as a result of the Citizens United case:

The yawning gap in independent interest group spending is alarming some Democratic officials, who argue that it amounts to an effort on the part of wealthy Republican donors, as well as corporate interests, newly emboldened by regulatory changes, to buy the election.

“While each of our campaigns has the resources they need to be competitive, we now face shadow groups putting their thumbs on the scale with undisclosed, unlimited and unregulated donations,” said Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

I’m getting scared! Shadowy groups, foreigners, and corporations, oh my!

One problem: there’s no evidence Citizens United has led to an increase in corporate donations, as the NYT reluctantly notes:

It is not clear, however, whether it is actually an influx of new corporate money unleashed by the Citizens United decision that is driving the spending chasm, or other factors, notably, a political environment that favors Republicans.
…
Corporations have so far mostly chosen not to take advantage of the Citizens United ruling to directly sponsor campaign ads themselves.

Some, however, are most likely funneling more money into campaigns through some of these independent groups, said Lawrence M. Noble, a lawyer at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom and a former general counsel for the Federal Election Commission. They had the right to make such contributions before the ruling, he said, but Citizens United made it more straightforward.

Well, but Republicans are outspending Democrats, so they’re just buying the election even if Citizens United had nothing to do with it. Right?

No. In an article last week, David Brooks argued having more money isn’t much of an advantage in elections, and pointed out that

Over the past year, the Democrats, most of whom are incumbents, have been raising and spending far more than the Republicans.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Democrats in the most competitive House races have raised an average of 47 percent more than Republicans. They have spent 66 percent more, and have about 53 percent more in their war chests. According to the Wesleyan Media Project, between Sept. 1 and Oct. 7, Democrats running for the House and the Senate spent $1.50 on advertising for every $1 spent by Republicans.

Oh, well, the DNC and candidates might be spending more money, but those shadowy independent groups are supporting Republicans more and that money is what’s really buying this election.

…No. Again. Brooks continues

But independent spending is about only a tenth of spending by candidates and parties. Democrats have a healthy fear of Karl Rove, born out of experience, but there is no way the $13 million he influences through the group American Crossroads is going to reshape an election in which the two parties are spending something like $1.4 billion collectively.

So, what are we left with? The Democrats, over the past month, have appealed to xenophobia by accusing groups of using foreign donations in the election, used fears of corporate influence in elections to scare people about Republicans, and have tried to disingenuously invalidate the GOP’s victory (if it occurs, of course) by arguing it was only because they had more, dirty money than the angelic Democrats did.

This is the party of hope and change?