By Margaret Hodson ’16, Editor-in-Chief
Earlier this month The New York Times reported that of the $176 million poured thus far into 2016 presidential campaigns, just under 50% of this money has come from only 158 families or the companies they run. According to the United States Census Bureau, around 322 million people currently live in America. This means that in the race to decide our next President, .0000005% of the population has given almost as much money as everyone else combined. The current system of financing political campaigns gives undue influence to the rich and to corporations at the expense of common Americans. As our system stands, money serves as a megaphone for the wealthy that drowns out the voices and concerns of everyone else.
Campaign finance reform has come to the forefront of the nation’s conscience now that the 2016 presidential campaigning season is heating up. Candidates on both sides of the political spectrum have addressed the issue, notably Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. The increased emphasis on campaign finance reform is likely reflective of the fact that many more Americans of both parties are beginning to realize the serious flaws in our current system. For example, a Bloomberg Politics poll from September 28th found that 78% of respondents believe it is bad that “corporations and unions may spend unlimited amounts on political causes.” The support isn’t just coming from Democrats or left-leaning independents. According to The New York Times, 81% percent of Republicans would favor an “overhaul” of the current financing method for political campaigns. A Wall Street Journal poll found that “the political influence of the wealthy” is a major issue for many voters in the 2016 election cycle.
Before the pivotal 2010 Citizens United v FEC Supreme Court case, the financing of political campaigns was regulated primarily by the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) of 1971 and the amendments to FECA in 1974. FECA required disclosure with regards to the sources of campaign contributions, and the amendments set up the Federal Elections Commission as well as meaningful contribution limits for donations to candidates and PACs. PACs are political action committees that support candidates but cannot be directly affiliated with or coordinate with the candidates. The important Supreme Court Cases of Citizens United v FEC (2010) and McCutcheon v FEC (2014) have had the effect of throwing out previous rules regulating spending by outside groups and “independent” campaigns (such as PACs) not in direct coordination with a candidate.
Due to these rulings, the landscape of campaign finance has changed drastically since 2010. There is now no contribution limit on the amount of money an individual—or a company or union—can donate to a super PAC or other outside group. However, the contributions limits on direct donations to a politician’s campaign are still capped, currently at a maximum donation of $2,700 per individual. As the limit on direct contributions has remained, it is no mystery as to why super PAC spending by wealthy individuals and corporation has skyrocketed since 2010. Right before the Citizens United decision in 2010, federal oil and gas political contributions were at about $35,000. By 2012, that number had risen to above $70,000. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, outside spending in elections has “more than doubled since 2010.” 
The Center for Responsive politics reported that outside political organizations such as super PACs have already spent five times as much money in the 2016 presidential race as they did in 2012 at this point in the election cycle. Super PACs have quickly become key players in elections, often raising much more money than the actual campaign of the candidate. Until presidential hopefuls Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders came along, it was the name of the game that regardless of political party, you needed a millionaire and billionaire-funded super PAC in order to run a competitive race.
Trump and Sanders are both outside of the campaign financing norm for different reasons. Trump has enough personal wealth to run a competitive campaign without needing to spend a lot of time fundraising or courting millionaires for large contributions. Sanders has thus far financed his campaign with an unprecedented number of small donations. He made the news early last month for being the first candidate to reach 1 million individual contributions.
With their alternate methods of financing their campaigns, these two candidates have helped to bring campaign finance reform to the forefront. Both presidential hopefuls believe that money has too large of an influence in politics, and have deliberately gone again the campaign financing grain to prove a point about their priorities. Excepting the two outliers of Sanders and Trump, every other major candidate in the 2016 presidential election is supported by a super PAC.
Some of the major super PACs are Right to Rise, America Leads, Priorities USA Action, Keep the Promise (I, II, and II) and Carly for America. Jeb Bush’s super PAC “Right to Rise” garnered a lot of attention over the summer for having raised an astounding $100 million.
Super PACs have begun to execute many tasks that are typically done by the campaigns of candidates, and on both sides of the political spectrum the line between coordination and non-coordination is increasingly fuzzy. Proponents of campaign finance reform claim that super PACs are not in fact “independent” expenditure committees; they are closely linked to candidates, and in fact are different from the candidate’s actual campaign in name only. Many super PACs create ads, coordinate grassroots organizing, and are run by individuals very close to the candidates themselves. Additionally, candidates often speak and events and fundraisers hosted by their super PACs. Undoubtedly, super PACs are very important. Yet due to Citizens United and McCutcheon v FEC, there is a disconcerting lack of transparency, regulations, and meaningful contribution limits as it relates to these influential “outside” spending groups.
The undisclosed spending and donors of many super PACs is referred to as “dark money.” The lack of disclosure and transparency in super PAC spending and financing born of Citizens United means it is difficult to know exactly who is attempting to buy and control our elections. Additionally, Citizens United decreed that for outside political spending as opposed to direct contributions to a political campaign, the typical ban on corporation and union political spending does not apply. The court argued that money is tantamount to free speech, and banning corporations from making political donations to super PACs would be infringing upon their freedom of speech. This line of thinking is very dangerous. I am reminded of the rallying call against the ruling in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby: “corporations are not people.” Many proponents of campaign finance reform have argued the same thing.
The Supreme Court has ruled it completely constitutional to ban companies or unions from giving direct donations to candidates. How is giving a donation to a super PAC so much different? As I stated above, super PACs often seem to act as extensions of the politician’s campaign. Along the same vein, it is constitutional for there to be limits on the amount of money that can be donated directly to a politician’s campaign. Why shouldn’t there be limits on the amount of money people can donate to super PACs? After all, I believe donating money is different from free speech. The reason limits on direct contributions to political campaigns were instituted in the first place was to preserve democracy and prevent money from having a too-large role in politics. This has been the goal of laws like FECA, but the intention of our lawmakers has been undermined by the Supreme Court’s recent decisions. Reforms are necessary to protect democracy.
The way the current system of campaign finance is set up, wealthy donors and big businesses are controlling who gets and run and what issues are important. The money of the rich is drowning out the voices of the poor and threatening a government that should by all of the people, not just some of the people. Politicians spend a ridiculous amount of their time fundraising and catering to the needs of the few.
According to Issue One, members of Congress spend over half of their time fundraising. This means representative in Congress spend half of their time listening and catering to the interests of a very small fragment of the population—those with money to spend. Even if politicians are ethical and cannot be bribed with donations, they still spend a disproportionate amount of time hearing the concerns of small pockets of their constituents. The system also needs to be reformed because not every politician is ethical, and the opportunities for abuse are far too abundant as the current model of financing political campaigns stands. Additionally, it is ludicrous that most of the money from campaigns comes from only a few hundred citizens. Getting “big money” out of elections is to the benefit of all and will strengthen democracy and an American form of self-government by all the people, not just those rich enough to have their voices heard.
Sources:
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/01/21/5-years-later-citizens-united-has-remade-us-politics
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/28/politics/bernie-sanders-chicago-koch-brothers-scotus/
http://www.mintpressnews.com/americans-really-hate-citizens-united-poll-finds/209963/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/carly-fiorina-super-pac_55b79747e4b0074ba5a6233c
https://www.opensecrets.org/527s/types.php
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/28/politics/bernie-sanders-chicago-koch-brothers-scotus/
https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/superpacs.php
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/printgroupProfile.asp?grpid=7610
http://www.pbs.org/johngardner/chapters/6.html
http://www.pfaw.org/sites/default/files/UnityStatementSigners0114.pdf
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-rapoport/plutocrat-primary-looms-a_b_6604232.html
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/11/us/politics/2016-presidential-election-super-pac-donors.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-martin-shkreli_5622637fe4b08589ef47aa62
Image Source:
http://adamfriedman.org/politics/understanding-money-in-politics/
