Financing Presidential Elections

The urgency of thwarting Donald Trump’s authoritarianism calls to mind Karl Marx’s aphorism “Men [sic] make their own history, but they do not make it as they please….” While it is not what we would want to be the case, Kamela Harris’ hopes for victory will largely be determined not only by the turnout of Democratic voters, but by how much money is spent in support of her candidacy.

Since she is likely to raise significantly more campaign funds than Donald Trump, her victory will occur in part as a result of the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision, Citizens United v FEC. In that decision, the Court ruled that private organizations have the same free speech rights as do individuals to engage in political spending. In commenting on the decision, the Monica Youn of the Brennan Center for Justice anticipated that Citizens United would “reorder the priorities in our democracy – placing special interest dollars at the center of our democracy and displacing the rightful role of voters.” Almost fifteen years later, it is clear that Youn’s prediction concerning the impact of what came to be called “independent expenditures” has been more than validated.

Prior to Citizens United, businesses and unions were permitted to form political action committees (PACs), but were limited to providing, at most, $5,000 to those committees. The justification for that restriction was that it would minimize the clout of individual donors. Under the new rules implemented after Citizens United, however, the constraint represented by that limit was obliterated. The Court made it clear that corporations could spend as much as they wanted to. The only restrictions on their unlimited “independent expenditures” were, first, that they could not explicitly coordinate their spending with candidates’ campaign organizations, and second, that they had to reveal their funding sources.

In fact, both of these rules have largely been ignored. And as independent expenditures have skyrocketed, Youn’s prediction has been vindicated. In 2012, the first presidential election after Citizens United, total independent expenditures on behalf of presidential candidates amounted to $220 million. In 2020, such expenditures were four times higher – $880 million.
What Youn did not foresee was that under the new rules, Democratic candidates for the presidency might come to benefit more than would Republicans. In 2012, independent expenditures supporting George Romney for President came to $145 million, compared to $75 million for Barack Obama. Eight years later in 2020, independent expenditures for Joe Biden were seven times higher than they had been for Obama. And that year, Biden’s $580 million in independent expenditures totaled almost twice the $313 million spent on behalf of Donald Trump.

It seems likely that this advantage for Democratic Presidential candidates will continue in the 2024 presidential campaign. While fundraising for the Biden campaign was sluggish, with his exit according to the Associated Press, Kamala Harris “is smashing fundraising records as the Democratic Party’s donors – big and small – open their wallets for the vice president….”

 Considering the threat of authoritarianism that a Trump candidacy represents, there is no doubt that all of this represents good news. There are times when, as today, it is better to accept the need to compromise principles than to accept a more damaging outcome.

But it does remain the case that money and campaign contributions in principle should not be allowed to influence political outcomes. There is no doubt that with regard to that principle, Citizens United has moved the country in the wrong direction. And it is clear that a well-funded system of public financing of election campaigns is the most effective antidote to the power of private wealth in politics.

Between 1976 and 2008, a system of full public financing grants to presidential campaigns was used by every major presidential candidate to fund their campaigns. But though the system still exists in principle, the fact that it has been severely underfunded has rendered it inoperative.  In accepting public financing, presidential candidates are required to limit their spending to the amount of the public grant. In 2024, that grant comes to $123.5 million, an amount far short of what candidates can easily raise from private sources. It is unsurprising, therefore, that they eschew participating in the system. Until that shortfall is repaired, we must all unfortunately continue to function in a fundamentally flawed electoral system dominated by wealthy donors.

But change is possible, and full public campaign financing offers a positive model. If the flood of private funding in 2024 results in a Harris presidency, she may choose to foster an environment in which the necessity of campaign finance reform will once again be on the political agenda.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR   Jay Mandle is the Emerita W. Bradford Wiley Professor of Economics, Emeritus,at Colgate University. His many books include Change Elections to Change America: Democracy Matters Students In Action, and Creating Political Equality: Elections As a Public Good,. Mandle’s regular monthly editorials, Money On My Mind, appear on the Democracy Matters website, and explore the role of private money in politics and other critical social issues.
The views expressed in Money On My Mind are those of the author, (not necessarily those of Democracy Matters, and are meant to stimulate discussion.