By Parker Rodgers
New York City, USA
What is campaign financing?
Campaign financing is when money is donated for the promotion of a political cause. Campaigns often need large amounts of money to pay for staff, advertising, travel, and other expenses. Although this money is beneficial for politicians and campaigns, it raises suspicion, as the whale donors the money comes from are often seen to manipulate politics.
How does manipulation occur?
The various companies and organizations that donate money to a campaign often have more of an influence on the result of an election, and subsequently on policy, than the candidate themselves. As organizations donate immense amounts of money to campaigns, they often expect favors to be granted in return. Wealthy people also have an outsize influence on campaigns and politicians when compared to the average citizen, as they simply have more money to donate.
This is executed through super PACs. Super PACs (Political Action Committees) are the organizations that raise money for political campaigns, funded by large corporations or wealthy individuals, and, in contrast to regular PACs, their spending is not meant to be coordinated with the campaigns they donate to. In reality, super PACs are used to buy political sway, which is then used to shape the government policies. This results in politicians promoting laws that will benefit corporate or wealthy donors more than ordinary citizens of America.
“Dark money donations” are donations made without disclosing the identity of the donor. Money is donated to nonprofit organisations falling under the 501(c)(4) category, which are not obliged to disclose donors, and these nonprofits then donate that money to super PACs, making the original source untraceable. The use of dark money means that special interests can capture politicians without voters being able to tell who they are and therefore what policy positions of a politician they might have impacted.
In the 2024 election, President Donald J. Trump raised $988,954,718 of “outside money” (money not officially spent in coordination with the Trump campaign, so often super PACs’ money) but only $463,662,725 of “candidate committee money” (money spent under the authority of the candidate, so voters more often know the source) according to OpenSecrets.org. More than half of President Trump’s campaign financing came from sources that are often dark money donors.
Thomas E. Mann is a senior fellow in Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution, who, in 2001, gave testimony in front of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration. In it, he explained “the populist version of this critique, drawing its strength from the regular diet of stories on PAC contributions, national party soft money, and Washington fundraisers, is that politicians are routinely bought and sold by special interests.” His words highlight the idea that super PAC donations give people and organizations the ability to essentially bribe politicians, using them for their private interest. He also refers to “soft money,” which is the unbounded amounts of money that can be donated to a political party. Although super PACs are still political action committees, they are independent from political parties, meaning they can raise unlimited amounts of money and spend it on the promotion of politicians, and while super PACs are required to report their donors, they can receive money through nonprofits. Clearly, super PACs and, through these vehicles, the wealthy have an undemocratically large say in who wins elections and what policies are implemented.
What are potential solutions?
In order to strengthen the power of regular voters, the “small donor public financing” system could be rolled out. These programs use public funds to match smaller donations, allotting more money to the candidate. This provides smaller donors with more power, as their donations are boosted in how much money they provide the candidate with. This allows financial campaign support to come from a larger variety of people, not only wealthy individuals.
In New York City, the small donor public financing program matches the contributions under $250 from city residents from 12 to 1 to 6 to 1 depending on the size of the donation - the smaller the greater the multiplier. For example, if someone donated $40 the state would add an extra $480.
To limit the pull of wealthy individuals, legislation could potentially be created to limit the amount of money they can spend. This would reduce to what extent bought-out politicians can have an advantage in terms of funding. This could be executed through the DISCLOSE Act, which was first proposed in 2010 but hasn’t been passed, and which essentially refines the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. This would increase transparency, exposing donors that give more than $10,000.
Ultimately, campaign financing in American elections needs reform as it unfairly distributes political power amongst citizens. Wealthy individuals have more pull in elections because of their large donations, as well as their ability to avoid transparency and donate money through roundabout means. In order to end the warped way we finance campaigns, initiatives such as small donor public financing and the DISCLOSE Act need to be implemented widely. Through these simple measures, citizens can reclaim their voices in elections, providing America with a president that better represents the populus.
"The system is rigged. Look around. Big corporations, billionaires, and their armies of lobbyists have taken over our government." - Senator Elizabeth Warren
slot gacor that's really incredible blog