OUR CORRUPT CAMPAIGN FINANCING SYSTEM part 3

U.S. political campaigns are awash in money. American oligarchs are buying our elected officials, thereby corrupting all facets of government. We must reform campaign financing to preserve our democracy. Matching small campaign contributions with public funds in a system that restricts the size and source of campaign contributions is the most effective answer to big money in our elections, particularly within the context of current Supreme Court rulings.

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

My previous three posts have focused on how a miniscule group of billionaires (aka the American oligarchs) are buying our elected officials (here), using super PACs to do so (here) and expecting a return on their “investments,” all of which corrupt our government (here). They also highlighted how big donors are using non-profit organizations that don’t have to report donors to hide their identities 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. Meanwhile, Congress has failed to act, although bills to reform campaign financing have been on the table. [1]

In the 2024 election campaigns, donors who spent at least $5 million spent more than twice as much as they had in the 2020 presidential election cycle. About 44% ($480 million) of all the money spent on Trump’s campaign came from just ten individual donors. The wealthy individuals spending tens and hundreds of millions of dollars on campaigns are motivated by greed (they expect a return on investment for their spending), as well as a desire for power and influence. Elon Musk (Tesla, X, Space X, Starlink, etc.) is the most visible of these oligarchs. He appears to be motivated primarily by a desire for power and influence. Jeff Bezos (Amazon and the Washington Post) and Mark Zuckerberg (Meta, Facebook, and Instagram) appear to be motivated primarily by greed and fear that Trump would retaliate and hurt their businesses if they didn’t support him. Peter Thiel (vulture capitalist and sponsor of J. D. Vance) appears to be motivated primarily by a desire for power and influence. Trump and J. D. Vance appear to be motivated primarily by a desire for power, although wealth may be a close second.

This huge spending on campaigns corrupts who runs for elected offices, who wins, what issues governments address, what policy alternatives are considered and adopted, and how laws are implemented and enforced (or not). The oligarchs’ spending buys access to elected and regulatory officials. It allows them to influence policies such as regulations and tax laws, as well as enforcement of them. [2]

More and more of the money spent on congressional races is coming from out-of-state donors, highlighting that big spenders are looking for a return on their investments, not just supporting their local congressional candidates. It also means that our elected officials are more likely to be responsive to wealthy special interests than to the constituents who actually live in their congressional districts.

The huge amount of money in supposedly democratic, one person one vote, elections is obscene. The buying of our elected officials by wealthy interests is corrupting all facets of our governments. To preserve democracy, we must reform campaign financing laws and push back against the power and influence of the oligarchs.

Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis faced these issues roughly a century ago. As a lawyer, often doing pro bono work in the public interest, he successfully challenged the powerful railroad, street car, electricity, and banking companies, as well as their wealthy owners.

The current situation makes clear how right Brandeis, a fervent supporter of democracy, was when he wrote almost 100 years ago, “We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.” How true those words ring today. [3]

An ancillary effect of the incredible cost of election campaigns is that elected officials must spend substantial time fundraising from the day they get elected. This diverts time, energy, and attention from policy making and legislating, as well as from interacting with constituents.

Before Republicans took control of the House in 2022, The Freedom to Vote Act (S.2747) was developed and introduced in the Senate to address the issues of big money and dark money in our elections. It included most of the key provisions of the For the People Act and the Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections (DISCLOSE) Act, which had previously been passed by Democrats in the House. Unfortunately, Republicans in the Senate blocked these bills and there is no hope for such reforms at the national level with Republicans fully in control now. (For more details see this previous post.)

The Freedom to Vote Act included provisions that would have: [4]

•     Reformed the campaign finance system by

o   a) requiring enhanced disclosure of all major donors by any entity spending more than $10,000,

o   b) ensuring super PACs are truly independent of candidates, and

o   c) strengthening enforcement of campaign finance laws.

•    Created a system for matching small donations with public funds in U.S. House campaigns that states and candidates could opt into. It would have matched each dollar of small donations with $6 of public funds in exchange for limiting the size of donations. This would eliminate the need for candidates to rely on large donations from wealthy special interests with their corrupting influence.

Given the control of the federal government by Republicans, oligarchs, and the six corrupt Supreme Court justices, people working to limit the influence of wealthy interests in our elections will need to focus at the state and local levels for now. State and local governments can enact laws implementing all of the provisions for the Freedom to Vote Act above: enhanced disclosure and transparency for campaign spending, requirements that super PAC and other outside spending is truly independent of candidates’ campaigns, public matching funds for small contributions to campaigns, and strict enforcement of campaign financing laws. [5]

Matching small campaign contributions with public funds in a system that restricts the size and source of campaign contributions is the most effective answer to big money in our elections, particularly within the context of current Supreme Court rulings. Such systems have been in place in multiple states for some time and in New York State starting in 2024. A number of municipalities also have such systems, including a very successful one in New York City since 1988. (See this previous post for more details.)

Given that the state and national parties set the rules for their primaries, they could address campaign finance reform. They could, for example, ban super PAC money and dark money in party primaries, as well as require strict disclosure of donors. So far, the Democratic National Committee has refused to consider such campaign finance rules, despite a push from some internal groups to do so. Apparently, it is still too wedded to big donors to be willing to work for government of, by, and for the people, as opposed to wealthy special interests.

I encourage you to contact your local and state elected officials, as well as state and national party officials, to ask them to enact campaign finance reforms. The corrupting influence of big money in our elections must be reversed if the U.S. is to be a democracy where all voters have a fair, if not equal, voice in our government. Money should not drown out the voices of citizens, and even candidates, in our elections. And voters have a right to know who is spending money to try to influence their vote. Justice Brandeis summed it all up by saying, “The end for which we must strive is the attainment of rule by the people” as opposed to rule by the oligarchs who are buying our elected officials and government.

[1]      Pino, M. & Fishman, J., 1/14/25, “Fifteen years later, Citizens United defined the 2024 election,” Brennan Center for Justice (Fifteen Years Later, Citizens United Defined the 2024 Election | Brennan Center for Justice)

[2]      Goldstein, L., 12/10/24, “The money game,” The American Prospect (The Money Game - The American Prospect)

[3]      Dilliard, I., editor, 1941, “Mr. Justice Brandeis: Great American,” with quotes from Lonergan, R., 10/14/41, “A steadfast friend of labor,” Labor (pages 42 – 43) (https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015009170443&seq=9)

[4]      Brennan Center for Justice, retrieved 1/19/25, “The Freedom to Vote Act,” (https://www.brennancenter.org/freedom-vote-act)

[5]      Pino, M. & Fishman, J., 1/14/25, see above.