OUR CORRUPT CAMPAIGN FINANCING SYSTEM part 2
U.S. political campaigns are awash in money and it’s corrupting our government. The big spenders, wealthy individuals and corporations, are looking for something in return. They generally get rewarded with policies and actions that provide a high return on their investments.
(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)
My previous two posts have focused on how billionaires are buying our elected officials (here) and how super PACs (political action committees) are the vehicle they are using to do so (here). They also highlighted how big donors are using non-profit organizations that don’t have to report donors in order to hide their identities (i.e., “dark money”) and how super PACs are violating the law by coordinating with candidates’ campaigns. Unfortunately, the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) is failing to enforce campaign finance laws.
An example of how big money donors and our political parties are flouting campaign finance laws is the growing and now extensive use of joint fundraising committees. These joint fundraising committees allow big donors to skirt campaign contribution limits and write one huge check, typically for tens of thousands of dollars, for candidates’ campaign committees and political party PACs. The entities in the joint committee then supposedly split up the money so that no contribution limits are violated. Some of the joint fundraising committees directly pay for advertising but frame it as a fundraising solicitation to evade restrictions on their activities. These joint committees have also figured out how to game the system to get the lower advertising rates supposedly given only to candidates’ committees. (Note: Advertising rates for super PACs and other non-candidate entities can be up to 20 times higher than those for candidates’ committees.) [1]
These big donors are special interests, and they view their campaign spending as an investment. They expect a return on their investment, and generally they get paid back many, many times over. You may remember that in 2017 wealthy Republican donors were telling Trump and the Republicans that if they didn’t get a big tax cut their support of Republicans in the 2018 congressional elections would be curtailed. So, the Republicans in Congress and Trump, in December 2017, enacted the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which gave huge tax cuts to wealthy individuals and corporations.
As campaign spending is increasingly dominated by outside money, which is increasingly from super PACs and done with dark money, the result is a political environment of hidden influence by wealthy individuals and corporations. This undermines an essential principle of democracy: that voters deserve to know who is trying to influence their vote.
An example of huge spending by a special interest, using, of course, a super PAC, is the cryptocurrency industry. It was one of the largest and most successful special interest spenders in the 2024 elections. It spent roughly $245 million via a super PAC called Fairshake. The majority of its money went to Republicans. It won every one of the 49 races it spent money on except for Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D-MA) winning re-election campaign. However, none of Fairshake’s advertisements even mentioned cryptocurrency; it clearly wanted to influence elections without revealing its true interests.
Fairshake’s 48 victorious campaigns may understate its influence, as its spending in primaries instilled fear in numerous Democratic candidates who avoided criticizing the crypto-industry or stated support for it. Cryptocurrency industry donors were responsible for almost half of all corporate donations to all super PACs. Fairshake already has $78 million on hand for the 2026 congressional elections. Based on all of this, the crypto industry will almost certainly be rewarded with weak regulation by Congress and the Trump administration.
Another example of special interest spending with a very specific outcome in mind is the American Israel Affairs Committee’s super PAC (AIPAC). It spent roughly $100 million in the 2024 elections, primarily in primaries to beat Democratic candidates who weren’t unquestioning supporters of Israel in the face of the horrific Gaza War. It spent $14 million in one Democratic primary to beat incumbent Jamaal Bowman (D-NY), a record for outside spending in a House race. It also spent heavily in incumbent Cori Bush’s (D-MO) primary, which she ended up losing. The primary funders of AIPAC are Republican mega-donors, many of whom each gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to it. [2]
As another example, two multi-national, multi-hundred-billion-dollar investment management firms, Blackstone Group and Citadel, each gave $22 million to the Republican Senate Leadership super PAC for the 2022 congressional elections. They want, and so far have gotten, lax regulation of their financial activities and favorable tax treatment for their incomes. For example, the “carried interest” provision of U.S. tax laws allows the firms’ managers to treat their income as capital gains, which lets them pay an income tax rate on their huge incomes at less than half the rate they’d pay on regular income (i.e., non-capital gains income).
The fossil fuel industry is also reaping rewards for its spending of about $75 million in support of Trump’s campaign. Although Trump, in a public statement, told fossil fuel industry executives that if they invested $1 billion in his campaign that he would reward them, $75 million appear to have done the trick. Trump, in his first days in office, has signed executive orders, some of them likely written by fossil fuel industry lobbyists, revoking climate change reduction rules. These executive orders allow increased oil and gas drilling off the U.S. coast and on federal lands, allow the building of new liquified natural gas (LNG) export terminals, and withdraw the U.S. from international climate change reduction efforts. [3]
My next post will discuss some more general effects of all this special interest spending on election campaigns and what can be done about this obscene and corrupting spending.
[1] Goldstein, L., 12/10/24, “The money game,” The American Prospect (The Money Game - The American Prospect)
[2] Johnson, J., 8/28/24, “‘Very bad sign for democracy’: AIPAC has spent over $100 million on 2024 elections,” Common Dreams ('Very Bad Sign for Democracy': AIPAC Has Spent Over $100 Million on 2024 Elections | Common Dreams)
[3] Johnson, J., 1/17/25, “Trump readies ‘day one climate destruction package’ after raking in big oil cash,” Common Dreams (Trump Readies 'Day One Climate Destruction Package' After Raking in Big Oil Cash | Common Dreams)