Money in United States Politics

During an election year, which was just last year, you may notice numerous campaign commercials for each candidate and you may wonder how can they afford all those ads? Well, there are several ways they can raise those funds and in recent years rules on fundraising has softened. There are several laws and court rulings in the last several decades that has allowed a lot of money into the political process. The last few election cycles have shown a massive increase in political campaign spending for congress and the presidency. This increase in fundraising and campaign spending has made it difficult for smaller campaigns to complete and for laws to get passed that Americans want.

History of Money in Politics

One way to understand the amount of money in the United States political process would be to look at the history behind the problem. According to Wilcox (2016) it all started with the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) in 1971, which allowed contributions to be traced to individuals. It also, “imposed limits on how much individuals, special interest groups and political action committees (PACs) could contribute” (Wilcox, 2016). This seems to be a good law because it limited how much money could be in the political process but unfortunately this did not last long. The 1976 Supreme Court case Buckley vs. Valeo determined it was unconstitutional and a violated freedom of speech by limiting how much a candidate could spend on their campaign (Wilcox, 2016).

This does not seem that bad because it just eliminated the limit on how much a candidate could spend and there were still limited on how much people could contribute. That was not all because the FECA allowed for a finance loophole called soft money, which placed no limits “on how much individuals could contribute, or political parties could spend, on expenses not expressly associated with individual candidates such as issue advertising” (Wilcox, 2016). Unfortunately, the soft money loophole that the FECA created was just the beginning of increased money in politics. There was one break from money in politics with the McCain-Feingold Act, which was passed on 2002 and it eliminated soft money (Wilcox, 2016).

The next court case involves Super PACs and Citizen’s United. According to Krieg (2012) the 2010 Supreme Court decision for Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission, which eliminated all restrictions on how much an individual could donate to a PAC. This allows for people who are wealthy to make unlimited donations to a political campaign that represents their political beliefs. Wealthy individuals can gain more influence over politicians than poorer Americans who cannot afford to donate as much. What is more troubling is the decision also “declared that corporations and unions could also make unlimited donations”. What makes this problematic is it allows for multi-million and billion dollar companies to buy as much political influence as they want expecting politicians to create policy that corporations like.

It may be good for Unions because they are more likely to represent workers who do not have as much money. Even with that fact, it is still problematic to give unions too much influence and it puts unions at a disadvantage because they may not have as much money as corporations. The two decisions led to the creation of Super PACs, which are “a political action committee that could accept unlimited donations so long as it did not coordinate its expenditure with any political campaign” (Frum,2016). This allows for wealthy organizations to set up an unlimited fund for a political campaign they like, which is done to give that campaign an advantage. It would be better to have a system where neither can donate to a political campaign to remove all big money from the political process.

Current State of Money in Politics

Another way to understand the problem of money in politics is to look at how it is affecting the political process. There is money pouring into the political process from both political parties with Super PACs. According to the Washington Post, about $462 million among 16 candidates was raised from Super PACs or other independent groups for the Republican primary. About $7.1 million among 5 candidates was raised from Super PACs or other independent groups for the Democratic primary. That is almost half a billion dollars that was raised from Super PACs or other independent groups, which was just for the candidates that lost the primary. Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton received $204.4 million from Super PACs and Republican candidate Donald Trump received $79.3 million from Super PACs (Washington Post).

These numbers show that there are millions of dollars being put into the political process ensuring Corporations and other organizations have a bigger voice than individuals. Presidential campaign spending when adjusted to inflation, population growth, and income growth was on a decline from 1976-1996 and has been increasing again since 2000 (Galka, 2017). Loosening campaign finance laws may have contributed to increased campaign spending especially with the major increase in the past few election cycles. There was a decrease for campaign spending in 2016 compared to 2012 but it may just be an anomaly in the increasing trend. Presidential campaigns are not the only aspect of the political process being affected by money because it is affecting congressional campaigns as well.

According to Desilver and Kessel (2015), spending for Senate races increased from about less than $200 million (in 2014 dollars) in 1974 to about $1.1 billion in 2014. It is similar with races in the House with expenditures being about $200 million in 1974, to about $1.3 billion around 2012, and then back down to $1.1 billion in 2014 (Desilver and Kessel, 2015). This shows that loosening campaign spending laws have significantly affected congressional elections with nearly a $2 billion increase combined between the Senate and House in 40 years. It began increasing because of the court decisions for Buckley v. Valao and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

Conclusion

There has been an increase in money in the political system because of loosening campaign finance laws. It has affected presidential campaigns but has had a bigger impact on congressional campaigns. It is more likely that the candidate with money will win because they will have a bigger campaign and become more recognizable. Allowing for unlimited donations to Super PACs has given a bigger voice to organizations and corporations that have more to spend. This creates a system where wealthy politicians are more likely to win and more likely to represent wealthy organizations or corporations. Super PACs should be eliminated so that campaign finance can return to only being funded by individual citizens at the current $2,500 limit or possibly lower.

References

Desilver, D., Kessel, P.V. (2015, December 7). As More Money Flows into Campaigns, Americans Worry About Its Influence. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/12/07/as-more-money-flows-into-campaigns-americans-worry-about-its-influence/#comments

Frum, D. (2016, February 24). Twilight of the Super PAC. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/super-pacs-2016/470697/

Galka, M. (2016, November 2). How 2016 Compares To 56 Years of Presidential Campaign Spending. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/56-years-of-presidential-campaign-spending-how-2016_us_5820bf9ce4b0334571e09fc1

Krieg, G. (2012, August 9). What is a Super PAC? A Short History. Retrieved from http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/super-pac-short-history/story?id=16960267

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/campaign-finance/

Wilcox, A. (2016, June 7). Understanding Campaign Finance Law. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/2016/06/understanding-campaign-finance-law/