Government gains its powers and consent from the outcome of campaigns and elections. Campaigns for elective office cost money. They always have, beginning with the administrations of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson.
Time was, however, when candidates financed campaigns with contributions from those who voted for them. That no longer holds. A profound change has occurred. It has yet to become a crisis, but the change deserves attention and scrutiny.
As Patton and Penniman write in A Nation on the Take, “Already too many Americans see their leaders in Washington as part of a coin-operated government, their leaders as overpaid agents of wealthy individual and corporate donors— largely disconnected from the everyday concerns of many Americans.”
Long before the 2010 Supreme Court Ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, money in federal elections had become a significant factor.
Citizens United, however, opened the flood gates. Money in unbelievable sums now pours into U.S. elections. The Court in Citizens United found that corporations, unions and other entities spending money in support of, or in opposition to a political candidate, is protected as free speech under the First Amendment.
As a result, says investigative- journalist Greg Palast, “We’ve got the best Democracy money can buy.”
Consider the evidence. Kinetic Political Insights predicts $10 billion will be spent on advertising in the 2026 mid-term elections, $1 billion in Michigan alone. In the March Illinois primary, one donor spent more than $33 million on four competitive congressional races and $22 million in the governor’s primary. In 2016, the country’s second largest private company, along with a circle of friends, is believed to have spent $889 million in contested races ranging from Congress to the courthouse.
During the 2024 election cycle, 300 of the nation’s 813 billionaire families contributed $3 billion in contested elections Who are the donors and contributors? They include: a collection of public and private corporations, wealthy, individuals, Political Action Committees (PACs), defense contractors, fossil fuel companies and others.
The largest individual donors are believed to come not from the top 1% of the wealthiest, but from the .01% of the nation’s richest. What are their motives? All seek political influence. They strive to anoint their chosen candidates and affect the election’s outcome, thereby securing direction of government’s plans and programs.
Those of the most extreme persuasion seek abolition of federal taxes on income, reduction and elimination of government regulations, curtailment of employment laws and the lessening if not outright repeal of Medicare and Medicaid. Irrespective of the belief of most Americans that government exists for the greater good; for the common benefits, protection and security of society, and not for the private interest or profit of any one citizen, family, or class.
Does Big Money have a downside? The answer is an emphatic “Yes.”It stimulates a relentless, frantic, mad scramble for campaign cash.
The process is called “the permanent campaign mentality” and it does not cease when the election’s over. For once in office, the elected leader confronts the time-consuming ordeal of raising money for the next election.
When Zell Miller became a U.S. senator, he was appalled at the expectation he would spend hours during the work week calling lists of prospective donors. A batch of newly elected congressmen in their 2013 orientation were encouraged to allow four hours each day for soliciting contributors.
The money-raising effort is distracting, exhausting and consumes precious time—time better spent studying, analyzing and addressing the legitimate issues and problems that descend upon the public interest.
Sources: Nation on the Take, Potter and Penniman, 2016, Bloomsbury Press; Dark Money, Jane Mayer, 2017, Anchor Books; The Best Democracy Money Can Buy, Greg Palast, 2002, Plume Books.
Comments