I am pleased to welcome Diana Dwyre and Robin Kolodny to the ELB Book Corner, authors of the new book, The Fundamentals of Campaign Finance: Why We Have the System We Have (University of Michigan Press). The 30% discount code for ELB readers is UMF24. The book is also available in open access: https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.9813302. This is the final of three posts.
Things Stay the Same
We do not offer a plan for reform in the final chapter of our book. Instead, we evaluate reform efforts made in U.S. states and by local governments to change the type of candidates who run for office, increase competition between candidates, stimulate voter engagement and turnout, reduce the amount of electoral spending and the time candidates spend fundraising, and encourage small donor participation to limit the influence of wealthy donors.
None of the reform efforts fully achieve their goals because they do not happen in a vacuum. As a federalist system, federal supremacy can limit or stop reforms entirely. Corruption is a structural concern in capitalist democracies, and freedom of speech leads to unequal political access. Meanwhile, elections at different levels of government happen alongside reformed systems, causing endless confusion and slow (at best) enforcement.
These and other fundamental features of the U.S. system explain why reform efforts are set up to fail. Our story of the rise and fall of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) makes this clear, as the courts picked off one limit after the other in the name of free speech. Moreover, campaign finance actors often find ways around disclosure requirements and contribution limits. Prohibitions on what sort of campaigning can happen just before elections bump up against First Amendment claims and are bound to be challenged for going too far. Attempts to mandate that personal wealth cannot be spent on political speech fell easily. Even literally giving people money (vouchers) to pass on to candidates isn’t enough inducement to make Americans engage with elections.
We do not oppose reform. We recognize, however, that reforms often fall short of their intent. For instance, gridlock is baked into the FEC’s structure with six commissioners who can cast a 3-3 vote and thus take no action, and a good deal of campaign finance activity is not disclosed, such as the identity of donors to and much of the spending by 501(c) nonprofit organizations.
If the Supreme Court continues to pursue its deregulatory approach that interprets limits on campaign spending as limits on political free speech, it will be difficult to curb unlimited spending. Even if the Court began to allow some restrictions (assuming today’s highly polarized Congress could enact such rules), or if the Constitution is amended to overturn Citizens United (highly unlikely), elections in the U.S. would continue to play out within a system that privileges those with resources. Business interests already spend significantly larger amounts on lobbying than campaign activity, and the most effective lobbying efforts now focus on regulatory agencies in the post-legislative phase of policymaking. Additionally, we show in chapter 6 how 18 unopposed House candidates in 2020 still raised significant amounts of money, most of it from traditional PACs. Not every monied interest puts their energy into changing the players.
Fundamental features of the U.S. political and economic systems limit the options available for erecting guardrails designed to promote political equality. However, the nature of communication has shifted dramatically so that the voices of the masses may more easily be heard. The internet and social media allow virtually anyone to engage in politics for little or no cost, and ideas can gain enough traction to influence political engagement. Thus, we remain optimistic that money is indeed not everything in American politics.