By Uche Oynebadi
TODAY, Americans go to the polls in their mid-term elections. These elections come two years into the presidency of every American leader, hence the “mid-term” nature of these cyclical polling.

This year, all 435 members of the U.S. House of Representations are up for re-election. Thirty six senators and 36 governors also face the electorate. In states such as Illinois, several political office holders are also facing voters’ decisions.

One of the prominent features of mid-term elections is that they, perhaps understandably, attract less voter turnout than presidential polls. The Pew Research Centre notes that voter turnout in mid-term elections have been dropping since the 1840s when compared to presidential elections.

In 2008 for instance, 57.1 percent of eligible voters turned out to cast their ballot and Obama won the presidency. In the mid-term elections two years later, the turnout was 36.9 percent. This, however, is not to say that mid-term elections are inconsequential. Their outcome can change the balance of power in Washington D.C. and can create a presidency that is deprived of real power.

The current Obama presidency is a good example. Right now, the Republicans control the House of Representatives and no poll has predicted that Democrats are going to gain majority in the House. It is the Senate elections that are dicey. The pre-election composition of the 100-person Senate is 53 Democrats, 45 Republicans and two independent senators who regularly caucus with Democrats.

Majority in the Senate

Republicans only need to wrestle six Senate seats from the Democrats in order to become the majority in the Senate. With the control of the Senate and House of Representatives, it is obvious that the first item on the Republicans’ agenda will be to begin the process of reversing all laws passed under President Obama.

First on the chopping block will surely be the Affordable Care Act or Obamacare as it is more popularly known. The corollary expectation is that the Republicans will try all legislative tricks to prematurely make Obama a lame-duck president.

The “outside” groups are interesting. They are groups of billionaires who pour in their wealth in elections to influence the outcome. These are usually people who cherish an ideology and are willing to use their money to push it through the electoral process. The Koch brothers are such individuals.

The brothers, Charles and David Koch, are ultra conservative business moguls who dole out money to an organization known as Americans for Prosperity. The mission of this organization is to undo whatever President Obama has done, and prominent on its agenda is the Affordable Care Act.

The Koch brothers and their counterparts on the left are able to pour in so much money into elections because of a 2010 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that allowed unlimited campaign funding and spending by corporations and unions in a suit brought by Citizens United, a conservative group.

The court ruled by a 5-4 majority that had all conservative justices voting in favour of the decision. Since that ruling, the cost of electoral campaigns in the U.S. has soared beyond control. Prior to that, there was a limit to what an individual or group could contribute to campaign coffers.

Contribution to campaign coffers

Now, groups like Americans for Prosperity can accept money from anyone without necessarily disclosing who they are. The only “restriction” so to speak is that while they can use their money to further the campaign of a candidate of their choice, they may not donate such money directly to the candidate.

Where does all that money go to? Therein lies another interesting part of the electoral process in the U.S. The destination of all that money is largely on political campaign advertising. In Nigeria and other developing nations, election periods are when all thugs are gainfully employed by politicians to do their dirty bidding. In the U.S., you may not find political thugs on the streets, but you can find their equivalent on the content of political advertisements.

This is a “civilized” way of launching all manners of attacks on your opponent. Nothing is off limits, from name calling to blatant character assassination and deliberate falsification of information about your opponent. Falsehood is packaged and sold to the electorate in the name of political advertising.

You cannot imagine the innuendoes that go on in the name of this form of advertising, a process that is oiled by the funds made available by super-packs, as organizations such as Americans for Prosperity are known. How about issues-oriented political advertising? There is very little room for them.

Another feature of this mid-term election that will remain a puzzle to anyone unfamiliar with American politics is that a majority of Democrats are distancing themselves from who should have been their best weapon: President Obama! If you are a Democrat campaigning in a more conservative state, you would be foolish to have the president come down to throw his weight on your campaign; indeed you would even use a substantial part of your campaign funds to debunk any association with the president. Why?

All your opponent needs to do in his or her campaign is to link you to the president and voters who habour morbid hatred for Obama will do the rest. They will not even consider the content of your political campaign message.

In this mid-term election, President Obama is a political liability to several Democrats seeking votes, simply because is a man many Republicans and conservatives passionately love to hate.