Money has always played a role in politics, but in modern America, it has reached a point where it’s threatening the very foundation of our democracy. That isn’t hyperbole. When politicians are more accountable to wealthy donors and corporate interests than to the voters who elect them, democracy doesn’t function properly. Instead of a government that represents the people, we end up with a system where the most powerful voices belong to those who can write the biggest checks.
This article explores the dangers of unchecked money in politics, failed attempts at campaign finance reform, modern problems, and the only lasting solution.
The Dangers of Unregulated Money in Politics
There’s a big difference between small donors and big donors in political campaigns. When many individuals contribute small amounts, they’re expressing their support for a candidate, helping to elevate their preferred choice through grassroots funding. This reflects the will of the electorate.
In contrast, when wealthy individuals and corporations make large donations, they often expect something in return—whether it’s favorable policies, tax breaks, or government contracts. That’s not democracy; it’s legalized bribery.
Campaign finance reform laws exist to prevent a few wealthy donors from overpowering the voices of millions of voters. When these laws are weak, a small group of elites can dominate elections and policymaking, leading to serious consequences for society, including:
1. Policy Favors Wealthy Interests Over Public Needs
Elected officials often prioritize the interests of their biggest donors rather than those of their constituents. This is evident in policies that favor corporations and the ultra-wealthy while ignoring pressing public concerns such as healthcare, education, and workers’ rights. For example, tax breaks for billionaires and corporate subsidies continue to expand, even as income inequality grows.
2. Corruption and Pay-to-Play Politics
When politicians rely on massive donations to fund their campaigns, they become extremely susceptible to corruption. Large donors often expect favorable treatment, whether through legislation, government contracts, or regulatory decisions. This “pay-to-play” system drastically distorts democracy and undermines public trust.
3. Voter Disillusionment and Apathy
When people see elections dominated by big money, many feel their vote doesn’t matter. If billionaires and corporations can flood the airwaves with ads and dictate political narratives, the average citizen may feel powerless to effect change. This discourages civic engagement and reduces voter turnout.
4. Dark Money Hides Who is Really in Charge
Dark money groups—political organizations that do not have to disclose their donors—allow the ultra-rich and special interests to fund campaigns in secret. Voters have no way of knowing who is influencing the candidates and policies they support. This lack of transparency prevents accountability and makes it nearly impossible to track conflicts of interest.
The History of Campaign Finance Reform in America
Money has long played a role in American politics, but over time, concerns about corruption and the undue influence of wealthy donors have led to efforts to regulate campaign financing. The history of campaign finance reform in the United States is a story of repeated attempts to rein in big money—only to be met with legal challenges, loopholes, and new ways for money to influence elections.
Early Campaign Finance (1700s–1800s)
In the early days of the United States, political campaigns were relatively simple and inexpensive. Candidates relied on personal connections and party organizations rather than massive fundraising efforts. However, corruption was still a concern. Wealthy individuals and businesses often provided financial support to politicians in exchange for political favors, just like today.
During the 1800s, as industrialization led to the rise of powerful corporations and business magnates, concerns grew over the influence of corporate money in politics. In the late 19th century, railroad companies and big business interests regularly contributed to political campaigns, often expecting favorable legislation in return.
The First Attempts at Reform (Early 1900s)
The first major push for campaign finance reform came during the Progressive Era, when concerns about corporate influence on government led to new regulations. Key developments included:
- The Tillman Act (1907) – The first federal law aimed at campaign finance regulation, the Tillman Act banned corporations from making direct contributions to federal political campaigns. However, the law had little enforcement power and was easily circumvented.
- The Federal Corrupt Practices Act (1910, 1925) – This law attempted to establish disclosure requirements for campaign donations and spending, but it was weakly enforced and largely ignored.
Post-Watergate Reforms (1970s)
One of the most significant moments in campaign finance reform came in response to the Watergate scandal of the early 1970s. The scandal exposed serious abuses in political fundraising, including secret donations and illegal campaign contributions used to influence elections. In response, Congress passed:
- The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) (1971, 1974 Amendments) – FECA introduced strict limits on campaign contributions, required disclosure of donations, and created the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to oversee campaign finance laws.
- Public Financing of Presidential Elections – The 1974 amendments to FECA created a system where presidential candidates could receive public funding if they agreed to spending limits.
However, in Buckley v. Valeo (1976), the Supreme Court ruled that while contribution limits were constitutional, restrictions on a candidate’s personal spending on their own campaign were a violation of free speech. This decision opened the door for wealthy candidates to self-fund their campaigns without restrictions.
The Rise of Soft Money and the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (2002)
Despite FECA, political parties and interest groups found ways around campaign finance limits. One major loophole was soft money—unregulated contributions to political parties that were technically for “party-building activities” rather than direct campaign support. This allowed massive amounts of money to flow into elections.
In response, Congress passed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), also known as the McCain-Feingold Act, in 2002. The law:
- Banned soft money contributions to political parties.
- Restricted “electioneering communications” (political ads funded by corporations or unions within 60 days of a general election).
The law faced immediate legal challenges, but it survived initial Supreme Court scrutiny in McConnell v. FEC (2003). However, its impact was short-lived.
Citizens United and the Explosion of Dark Money (2010–Present)
Without a doubt, the most consequential shift in modern campaign finance came with the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC (2010). The ruling struck down parts of Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, declaring that corporations and unions have a First Amendment right to spend unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns, as long as the spending is “independent” of candidates.
This decision led to:
- The rise of Super PACs, which can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money from corporations, unions, and individuals.
- A surge in dark money—political spending from groups that do not have to disclose their donors.
Since Citizens United, political spending has reached record highs, with billionaires, corporations, and special interest groups dominating the political landscape more than ever before.
Understanding Super PACs
Super PACs emerged following the 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission Supreme Court decision, which allowed for unlimited independent political expenditures by corporations and unions. Unlike traditional Political Action Committees (PACs), which have contribution limits and can donate directly to candidates, Super PACs can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money to advocate for or against political candidates, provided they do not coordinate directly with the candidates’ campaigns. While Super PACs are required to disclose their donors, the vast sums they control have amplified the influence of wealthy individuals and organizations in elections.
The Rise of Dark Money
Dark money refers to political spending by organizations that are not required to disclose their donors, effectively obscuring the sources of funding behind significant electoral influence. These groups, often registered under sections of the tax code that classify them as “social welfare” organizations or trade associations, can spend unlimited amounts on political campaigns without revealing their funding sources. This lack of transparency prevents voters from understanding who is behind the messages they receive, undermining informed decision-making.
Elon Musk: The Modern Example of How Money in Politics Has Spiraled Out of Control
In the lead-up to the 2024 presidential election, Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla and SpaceX, emerged as a significant financial supporter of Donald Trump’s campaign. Federal Election Commission filings indicate that Musk contributed at least $260 million to pro-Trump efforts, making him the largest individual donor in that election cycle.
In addition to his substantial donations, Musk’s political action committee, America PAC, initiated a controversial $1 million-a-day voter sweepstakes in swing states. This initiative offered registered voters the chance to win $1 million daily until the election, raising legal and ethical questions about potential violations of federal laws prohibiting payments to voters.
Following these political contributions and initiatives, Musk’s net worth experienced significant growth. Serving in the Trump administration, Musk’s role reportedly provided opportunities that benefited his business interests.
These developments have sparked discussions about the influence of wealthy individuals in politics and the potential conflicts of interest arising from their dual roles in business and government.
How Supreme Court Reform Relates to Campaign Finance Reform
Supreme Court rulings can shape the country for generations. The Citizens United decision was handed down in 2010, and if nothing is done to overturn it—which seems increasingly unlikely—its effects could last as long as the Constitution itself. The challenge is clear: we need campaign finance reform, but Congress refuses to act, and the Supreme Court has ruled that past attempts to regulate money in politics are unconstitutional.
While the Supreme Court is the highest authority on the constitutionality of laws, its rulings are often shaped more by the personal biases and ideologies of the justices than by an objective interpretation of the Constitution. In practice, justices decide how they want to rule based on their beliefs and then craft legal arguments to justify their decisions as constitutionally sound.
This becomes a serious problem when the Court is corrupt or ideologically out of step with the majority of Americans. When that happens, the Court can issue rulings that go against the will of the people, benefiting only a select few while undermining democracy as a whole.
The recent revelations about Justice Clarence Thomas accepting luxury gifts and vacations from billionaire benefactors highlight the deep corruption within American democracy. While Supreme Court justices don’t campaign, the same big-money influence that distorts elections also corrupts the judiciary, ensuring that rulings favor the interests of the wealthy elite.
That’s why reforming the Supreme Court must be part of the solution. Part of reforming the Supreme Court should be a faster way to undo really bad decisions, like Citizens United, before those decisions cause irreparable damage. A possible way to do that would be to give the American people the power to override harmful Supreme Court decisions via a popular vote. We included that in the hypothetical Amendment for Supreme Court Reform. Additionally, the Citizen-led Amendment Pathway amendment would allow the public to pass constitutional amendments without relying on politicians, ensuring that reforms like campaign finance regulations could be enacted despite congressional or judicial obstruction.
How A Constitutional Amendment for Campaign Finance Reform Can Restore Democracy
Our democracy needs stronger campaign finance regulations than those provided by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act—even before Citizens United further weakened the system. Each time Congress attempted to address this issue, the Supreme Court later struck down the bulk of their efforts. At this point, Congress alone cannot solve the problem. The only way to ensure fair elections and eliminate the influence of big money in politics is to enshrine campaign finance reform in the Constitution itself.
Here’s a summary of what a constitutional amendment for campaign finance reform should include:
1. Overturn Citizens United
One of the most effective ways to rein in big money in politics is to overturn Citizens United through a constitutional amendment. This would allow Congress to place limits on corporate and billionaire spending in elections.
2. Implement Publicly Funded Elections
Public financing of campaigns would give candidates an alternative to relying on wealthy donors. Small-donor matching programs, where the government amplifies small individual contributions, could empower grassroots candidates and reduce the influence of big money.
3. Require Full Transparency in Political Donations
Dark money must be eliminated through stronger disclosure laws. Voters should know exactly who is funding political campaigns and policy initiatives.
4. Impose Strict Limits on Individual and Corporate Contributions
Capping donations from individuals and corporations would prevent a small group of ultra-wealthy donors from having disproportionate influence. Some states have already taken steps to implement stricter contribution limits, and similar measures should be enacted nationwide.
We create a hypothetical Campaign Finance Reform Amendment in the Democracy Bill of Rights. Please feel free to review it and let us know if you have ideas to improve it.
Conclusion
When money controls politics, democracy ceases to exist. Billionaires and corporations drown out the voices of ordinary citizens, policies cater to the wealthy instead of the public good, and elections become battles for cash rather than debates over ideas. If we want a government that truly represents the people, we must take decisive action to eliminate the corrupting influence of big money. The only way to fully restore democracy is to change the Constitution itself, ensuring that every vote carries more weight than every dollar.
Americans may disagree on many issues, but nearly all of us can agree that corruption and bribery have no place in our political system. Campaign finance reform isn’t just necessary—it’s essential to fulfilling the vision of our nation’s founders. They entrusted the people with the power to create a more perfect union, and the only way to honor that vision is to fix what is broken.
Leave a Reply