CAMPAIGN FINANCE BAD NEWS AND GOOD NEWS
The huge amounts of money being spent on campaigns is a serious and growing problem, distorting who runs, who wins, and the policies they support. Increased giving by small donors is good news, but the bad news is that it’s overwhelmed by the giving of big donors. Nationalization of campaign fundraising and increasing donor opacity are also problems. Your involvement in giving to and volunteering on campaigns makes a difference. Matching small donations by constituents with public funds is a growing way to address problems with campaign financing.
(Note: If you find my posts too long to read on occasion, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)
The huge amounts of money being spent on campaigns is a serious and growing problem. For example, Peter Thiel’s $15 million and additional money from his cronies basically bought J.D. Vance a U.S. Senate seat in 2022. Elon Musk pledged $45 million a month to Trump’s presidential campaign. (He may have subsequently rescinded the pledge.) Overall, as-of August 15, supposedly independent super PACs and groups had already spent a record amount – over $1 billion – in 2024 election campaigns. This is almost twice what they had spent at the same point in the last presidential election year of 2020, which was the record at the time. [1]
The good news is that giving by small donors has increased. The bad news is that giving by big donors has increased even more and outweighs the donations of the millions of small donors. In the 2022 congressional elections, the 100 biggest donors contributed more than $1.2 billion in total (yes, billion). That’s 60% more than the total donated by millions of small donors. This is in large part due to the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision (and related decisions) that allowed unlimited donations by wealthy individuals and corporations, asserting that this is a free speech right. Prior to 2010, small donations significantly outweighed the 100 largest donors. [2]
Another troubling trend is the nationalization of campaign fundraising, which means that more and more campaign money is coming from outside a candidate’s district, i.e., NOT from the candidate’s constituents. In high profile congressional races, out-of-state contributions now constitute the vast majority of the money spent on campaigns. This is a result of the unlimited spending by super political action committees (PACs) and other outside groups that are ostensibly operating independently of the candidate’s campaign. Nationalized funding incentivizes candidates to take extreme positions and engage in outrageous behavior to garner national attention and donors.
A third troubling trend is that campaign money is becoming harder and harder to track, i.e., it is harder and harder to identify the original source of the money. So-called “dark money” groups, which are not required to disclose their donors, are spending more and more. Legal loopholes and lax enforcement (particularly by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Federal Election Commission (FEC)) are allowing non-profits and even charities (whose donations are tax deductible) to spend money on political campaigns. In addition, more and more money is being spent on on-line activities and promotions where disclosure laws haven’t caught up with the reality of today’s campaigns.
The prominent role of big money distorts not only who wins elections, but who runs, as well as what policies are supported by candidates and then enacted by those who win. People without access to wealth, disproportionately people of color and women, are less likely to run for office and to win. Big money also exacerbates the risk of corruption, both blatant and subtle.
To address these problems, requirements for campaign donor transparency need to be strengthened and enforced. Rules and regulations for super PACs and other politically active groups need to be tightened and better enforced. Ultimately, the Citizens United and other related Supreme Court decisions need to be overturned by a constitutional amendment.
In the meantime, matching small campaign donations from constituents with public funds is needed to enhance the importance of contributions from actual voters. This also makes non-traditional candidates (i.e., non-white and non-male) more competitive. New York City, and more recently New York State, along with other states and municipalities, have successfully implemented this campaign financing reform, and it’s been very effective.
I urge you to donate what you can to candidates you support. Small contributions do make a difference, particularly in lower-profile and local elections. They also let the candidate know that you are paying attention and want your voice heard. They give you additional visibility and influence with elected officials you supported when they were running for office. To further increase your visibility and influence, volunteer for candidates you care about, if you can. Knocking on doors, making phone calls, writing postcards, and other personal communications really make a difference in campaigns!
[1] Cloutier, J., 8/15/24, “Outside spending in 2024 federal election tops $1 billion,” Open Secrets (https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2024/08/outside-spending-in-2024-federal-election-tops-1-billion)
[2] Weiner, D. I., 7/24/24, “A changing campaign finance landscape,” Brennan Center for Justice (https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/changing-campaign-finance-landscape)