Buying Power: Understanding Money, Politics, and the Law
How campaign finance impacts our political process and why you should care
America was just dragged through another midterm election. As always, voters are more than happy to see the TV ads, billboards, and phone calls fade away. Some of this advertising worked, impressing the public to the point that small dollar donations started flowing in. However, how much did those donations actually influence the election?
The United States is divided nation, with the glorification of extreme leaders and demonization of the other. Bipartisanship seems like a thing of the past, something you can tell stories about to shock your children and grandchildren. However, there is one issue that has traction with the working class of both parties: who really funds political campaigns.
Almost every voter can agree that, whatever the campaign finance laws are now, it isn’t working. Despite all of the complaining, however, there is very little knowledge of what our current legislation contains. So, let’s jump in and take a closer look so that you know what to complain about.
In 2010, the Supreme Court issued their ruling on the Citizens United vs. FEC case, granting corporations the title of personhood, and determining that money is a form of free speech. With both of these factors in place, corporation were permitted to donate massive amounts of money to Political Action Committees (PACs) unchallenged, their spending protected under the first amendment. Changes took effect immediately, seen in the drastic change in amount of money raised in presidential elections. Elections have gone from raising 3.1 billion dollars in the year 2000, to raising 5.8 billion in 2012. In just four election cycles, the amount of money raised nearly doubled! Citizens United might be the most drastic change in campaign finance history.
Now, elections aren’t quite an open door. There are limits and figures in place. For example, at the federal level, an individual may only donate up to $2,700 a year on any single candidate, and $5,000 annually to any PAC. A PAC may spend up to $5,000 in both areas previously stated, that is, only if those funds are limited to one candidate or race.
This is not the part many take issue with. The lack of regulation is not quite the issue. Rather, the number off loopholes undermines current legislation. Independent-expenditure-only, political action committees, more commonly known as ‘Super PACs’, may legally accept an unlimited number of donations. There are no restrictions on how much corporations donate to super PACs. Hence, the reason behind much of the frustration displayed by the general public.
According to a Washington Post poll done shortly after the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, 72% of Americans, both Republicans and Democrats were opposed to the ruling and wished to see restrictions on corporate donations reinstated. Despite such unpopularity, those with the power to take political action against the ruling did not raise a finger because it was policy makers who benefitted from this decision.
Due to the lack of restrictions on donations, as well as spending, under our current set of laws, PACs spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on local elections, and millions on national level ones. This often means that small, individual donations no longer hold as much value to candidates. Candidates don’t care about John Smith’s $20 donation because they have Big Corp giving $100,000 a month.
It may come as no surprise then that, when legislation comes around that Big Corp doesn’t like, the candidate will not be voting for it. Citizen United turned campaigns into corporate auctions, in which legislation is passed or blocked for the highest bidder.
Seeing how prominent this topic became during the midterms gave me hope that changes will be made to this broken system. Maybe, just maybe, bipartisanship will be restored and the government will go back to being a functional entity. Until then, may the highest bidder win.
