OUR CORRUPT CAMPAIGN FINANCING SYSTEM
U.S. political campaigns are awash in money with increasing portions of it coming from super PACs and “dark money” non-profits. The unlimited political spending by super PACs, allowed by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, is not independent of candidates’ campaigns nor are its donors fully disclosed. These were the Supreme Court’s stated requirements to ensure that candidates weren’t corrupted by the unlimited spending. Knowledgeable observers knew these requirements and the avoidance of corruption were a joke from day one.
(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)
Sixteen billion dollars were spent on the 2024 U.S. federal election campaigns. (See this previous post for more details.) Three types of spending occur in our federal elections:
- Candidates’ political committees
- Political action committees (PACs)
- Super PACs
Candidates’ committees can accept up to $3,300 from an individual per election. (A primary and general election count as two elections.) A candidate’s committee can receive up to $5,000 per election from a PAC or party committee. A candidate’s committee may not accept any money from a super PAC. (Note: All money spent on a campaign that is not spent by a candidate’s committee is referred to as “outside money.”) [1]
PACs can accept contributions from individuals (not organizations) of up to $5,000 per year. PACs can contribute up to $5,000 per election to a candidate’s committee and up to $15,000 per election to a political party committee.
Super PACs (which came into existence after the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision) can accept contributions of unlimited size from any entity, i.e., an individual or an organization, including a corporation or other business entity. They are not allowed to contribute to candidates’ committees or to political party committees. Their expenditures are supposed to be independent of candidates and parties. This requirement for independence was central to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. The five justices supporting the unlimited contributions and spending wrote in their decision that disclosed, independent spending could not corrupt candidates or our government. Therefore, allowing unlimited, independent spending in campaigns, including by corporations, was constitutionally protected free speech.
To maintain independence, super PACs are prohibited (supposedly) from coordinating with candidates’ campaigns. However, this independence began eroding the day after the Court’s decision. That erosion grew dramatically in 2024. Knowledgeable observers knew from day one that this assertion of independence and lack of corruptive influence was a smoke screen for the justices who wanted to allow wealthy individuals and corporations to dominate our elections and government. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) has not enforced the law on independence. It has never fined or otherwise penalized a super PAC, even when coordination was blatant, as knowledgeable observers knew it wouldn’t.
For example, campaigns put “red boxes” in the media sections of their websites with messaging and targeting information. The super PACs use this information to ensure their messaging and targeting is aligned with the candidate’s campaign strategy. [2]
One of the most blatant violations of super PAC independence in 2024, was that super PACs actually ran extensive door knocking and other voter outreach efforts. Elon Musk’s super PAC’s activities in Pennsylvania were the most notable example. This kind of voter outreach requires sophisticated voter lists and street maps that candidates’ campaigns typically have and that PACs typically don’t have. Moreover, a failure to coordinate such activities with campaigns would create substantial redundancy and inefficiency. Nonetheless, an FEC ruling in 2024 essentially legalized such activities.
Furthermore, wealthy donors have found a way to avoid disclosure of their identities by funneling their money through non-profit 501(c)(4) organizations. (See this previous post for more details on 501(c)(4)s.) This “dark money,” as it is referred to, was about half of the $4.5 billion in outside spending in the 2024 federal elections.
My next post will present more examples of the corruption of the campaign finance system, discuss the effects of all this special interest spending, and give some options for what can be done about this obscene spending on our elections.
[1] Ghosh, S., 9/15/22, “PACs, super PACs and more: Your guide to key election spending vehicles,” Campaign Legal Center (PACs, Super PACs and More: Your Guide to Key Election Spending Vehicles | Campaign Legal Center)
[2] Goldstein, L., 12/10/24, “The money game,” The American Prospect (The Money Game - The American Prospect)