Over the past several decades, campaign expenditures have steadily increased, culminating with a shattering $5.3 billion price tag for the 2008 election. But perhaps more startling is the fact that independent expenditures, the money spent by non-party organizations often funded by wealthy donors and corporations, actually increased during the 2010 midterm election. Typically, without the star power of presidential politics, midterms draw less spending. Yet according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics, total outside spending for the 2010 elections exceeded that of 2008 by about $3 million. So what happened?
In the wake of the now-landmark Supreme Court case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the face of campaign finance law has changed, opening the floodgates to the influence of corporate money in politics. The introduction of unregulated corporate money into the election cycle may well skewer the political process, enabling the purchase of outsized influence in government and affecting the outcomes of issues citizens care about most.
(Un)intended Consequences
The influx of post-Citizens United money has largely been channeled through independent organizations known as Super Political Action Committees, or “super PACs.” Individuals or corporations can anonymously donate unlimited amounts of money to super PACs, circumventing many previously cumbersome donation restrictions. Further, Super PACs enjoy new freedoms, such as the ability to directly mention the names of specific candidates in attack ads. These well-funded, well-connected political entities have injected tremendous amounts of money into the political process. American Crossroads, a super PAC created by Karl Rove, raised $27 million in the 2010 election cycle alone. As Mark McKinnon, former chief media advisor to President Bush, noted, “Outside organizations today have an inordinate voice relative to their numbers, because they get big checks that allow them to buy big amplifiers and drown other voices out.”
Legally, super PACs cannot confer directly with individual campaigns, but their contributors know the inherent value in giving. “A campaign contribution is an investment,” contends David King, professor at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government. “Of course there’s an impact of money on policy, otherwise [they] wouldn’t be investing in it.” While the President is under the continuous scrutiny of an entire nation, individual legislators generally fly under the radar and, “most members of congress are exquisitely aware of where their money is coming from.”
The Mega Megaphone
While politicians’ attachment to special interests is hardly new, super PACs are uniquely influential in their abilities to distort the public discourse. Because they are legally prohibited from having “common coordination and control” with campaigns, super PACs can actually usurp the candidate’s platform. Benjamin Ginsberg, an attorney specializing in election and campaign finance law, explained that, “The candidates can’t control the message of a super PAC, nor really have an impact on it.” Therefore, external messages can soon come to dominate the campaign. Steve Grand, a Republican media strategist, contends, “The voters will hear more from the independent groups than they may hear from the candidates themselves. Sometimes these candidates may have a tougher time getting their point out, because they’re not only competing with the other side, they’re competing with the independent expenditures that may or may not have their message right.”
Although super PACs remain unique political forces, they do not necessarily hold allegiance to individual candidates or even one party. By diversifying their investments, Super PACs can create incentives for politicians from both parties to support their agenda, as acting against the Super PAC would swing massive expenditures against the party or candidate. Super PACs can use this tactic to take issues such as reducing oil subsidies off the political table, even though a majority of Americans may support curtailment. Mark Halperin, senior political analyst for Time Magazine, told the HPR that by shifting donations from political parties and open political arenas into secretive super PACs, “Citizens United is changing the way business is done.” For Halperin, effective campaign finance reform would ensure that money is not just squeezed “from one bucket into another,” as he claims happens now.
Alternative Solutions?
With the flaws of existing campaign finance system, experts suggest several options for limiting the influence of special interests in the political process. For some, the path to equitable campaigns and greater democracy lies not with reversing Citizens United, but changing campaign regulations. Ginsberg believes that candidates are handicapped by the $2500 per person limit, McCain-Feingold regulations, and that individual candidates should not solicit funding from, “the groups that have legislation in front of Congress.” Instead, Ginsberg suggests, “Let the parties raise that money, so that they can fund the campaigns.” Yet, this process could inadvertently ensure entire slates of legislators susceptible to special interest groups.
For others, money itself is a problem. McKinnon observes that, “If it’s money that gets you re-elected, it’s money you’re going to pay attention to. And the more money you get, the less you’re going pay attention to the little guy.” McKinnon, founder of the No Labels Movement, a group committed to the creation of a post-partisan Congress through grassroots organization, argues for publicly financed campaigns, claiming, “If politicians aren’t tied to special interests to raise money then they will turn their attention where it belongs – to voters.” However, this change has to come from grassroots organizations, McKinnon believes, because, “Congress is incapable of reforming itself.” Establishing a truly national grassroots movement nonetheless requires strong organization and significant funding: the same thing No Labels attempts to counter. For the time being, however, No Labels and other similar organizations may provide the best hope for curtailing the influence of money in politics.
Lingering Questions
Analyses of campaign finance may involve complex legal opinions, but the significance of campaign finance law echoes at the core of American democracy. Is spending money really a First Amendment right? Should voices cloaked in anonymity have the power to drown out the “silent majority” of Americans not wealthy enough to afford a broad platform? Unfortunately, the aftermath of Citizens United suggests that already, Super PACs’ influence greatly exceeds their numbers. According to Thomas Mann, a fellow at the Brookings Institute, “we are quickly returning to a state of nature in campaign finance akin to the Gilded Age when corporate and individual wealth reinforced economic inequality.” While politics in the United States may not be harmonious, Americans from all walks of life place their faith in the sanctity of ‘one man, one vote.’ Unfortunately, the High Court’s ruling reigns supreme for now, allowing the unfettered access of special interests to the ballot box.
Matt Shuham ‘15 and Nathaniel Donahue ’15 are Contributing Writers
© 2024 Harvard Political Review. All rights reserved.