Money in Politics

  In both of my presentations, I discussed the role of money in politics. Money has been involved in politics essentially as long as politics itself has been around. Even today, most countries must decide how they wish for money to affect their political environment, if at all, and to what extent money should be tolerated in influencing the system’s outcomes. This has resulted in each country having an eclectic range of rules and laws for campaign finance and lobbying activities that vary per country. As such, I decided to narrow the scope of my topic to the status of campaign finance and lobbying within the United States only. 

The trust Americans have in their federal government to do what is best for them has been at historic lows in recent years. Only approximately 19% of Americans have faith in the government to do what is right “most of the time” according to the Pew Research Center’s National Election Study report for 2022. A significant portion of this distrust stems from Americans’ negative perception of the vast influence of money in electing members to Congress and the money that influences how members vote after they are in office. In the last few decades, campaign finance laws have gradually been weakened and overturned by a number of court cases, including a number before the Supreme Court. For instance, the 1976 Supreme Court case Buckley v. Valeo struck down the Federal Election Campaign Act’s limits on campaign spending in the name of free speech by virtue of the First Amendment of the Constitution. This resulted in candidates for office, as well as their campaigns, being able to spend essentially unlimited amounts of funds on items such as advertisements. Another important case arose due to the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. This Act prohibited corporations from funding election ads within a certain period of time preceding primary and general elections. However, this ban was overturned in FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life (2007). In this ruling, the Supreme Court held that ads that did not expressly advocate for or against a particular candidate could be ran all the way up to the election date in question. The aforementioned cases now allow for candidates and their campaigns to spend as much as they wish in each election they are a candidate for, and they allow election ads to be run up to the day of the election provided they do not specifically advocate for or against a candidate – an admittedly easy standard to reach. This is still more or less the status of these laws today as well. Lastly, one of the most well-known Supreme Court cases regarding campaign finance  – Citizens United v. FEC (2010) – allowed corporations and other advocacy groups to be able to spend unlimited amounts on election ads, again on free speech grounds. So, as you can see, the laws around campaign finance in the United States have gradually, albeit steadily, been eroded to our current landscape where there can be unlimited election expenditures by candidates, campaigns, corporations, and advocacy groups all the way up to election day. Including the effects of SpeechNOW.org v. FEC (2010), many of the donors who gave this money are obfuscated through shady organizations such as Super PACs and 501(c) organizations who have loose disclosure requirements, if any at all. The amount of money being spent has only been increasing each election cycle as these groups get more efficient at their methods. This, combined with Americans becoming more and more aware of just how pervasive such spending is in our elections, is a major point of concern. 

This is also true when it comes to concerns over lobbying. The sheer amount of money being spent makes Americans feel as though their voices are being drowned out by special interests and massive corporations. The total spent on lobbying legislators has also been on the

Most lobbying firms reside on "K Street" in DC

rise in recent years. So much so, in fact, that there has arisen an entire industry in Washington, DC, of businesses who work solely to accrue influential connections and work for companies or trade groups to influence particular congressmen to support whatever is in their clients’ best interest. Many are concerned that this is also a way for constituents’ voices and interests to be quieted. Furthermore, many are concerned that many offers from lobbyists – such as campaign contributions or the promise of a future, well-paying job – encourage politicians to focus primarily on their own possible personal gain rather than doing what is best for the public. By relying upon campaign contributions from lobbyists, for example, legislators are intrinsically becoming linked to the companies the lobbyists are serving. As such, many argue that this is another way legislators are becoming delinked from their constituents and their interests. Instead, legislators prioritize the interests of the companies or trade groups that are willing to provide substantial funds to the legislators’ reelection campaigns. However, there are those who believe lobbying provides a useful service to legislators. Some believe that the extent of the connections lobbyists have, as well as the information they accumulate throughout their careers, make it easier for legislators to obtain that same information when it is relevant to their work. Some supporters also believe that having an array of lobbying firms, each with its own stance on a topic or bill, provides an easy way for busy legislators to quickly ascertain how they should vote or stand on an issue. 

I personally would like to see some vast changes to the United States’ rules regarding both campaign finance and lobbying. For instance, I believe that the ban on corporate money funding election ads should be restored. Moreover, I want there to be stringent, detailed disclosure requirements for all campaign donations and expenditures. I believe this should also apply to third parties such as interest advocacy groups and their electioneering communications as well. I would also like to see the scope of lobbying to be curtailed substantially in order to restore the people's concerns as the principal concern of legislators, not their own personal gain. Regardless, I enjoyed this class very much and hope everyone continues to maintain their concern and willingness to learn and do what is necessary to save and improve our world.