Policy Problem

Stakeholders

Throughout all of American history, the main stakeholders in campaign finances have been lobbyist groups such as Political Action Committees and Special Interest Groups. According to OpenSecrets, out of the $8.9 Billion spent in the 2022 midterm elections, close to $7.5 Billion, or about 84 percent of all campaign spending, came from lobbyist groups. 

Risks of Indifference

What this means is that in the United States, elected officials rely heavily on a small number of donors to get elected. Without campaign finance reforms, politicians can write bills, pass policies, and vote on legislation that don’t necessarily benefit their constituents, but rather those with the money to back them and their campaigns. 

Nonpartisan Reasoning

The only way to produce any meaningful campaign finance reform is on the national level. This is because the majority of states already have some limitations on campaign finances in order to limit the power interest groups have on state-level offices. However, because the main crux of campaign reform has to do with Congressional or Presidential races, the only way any change can occur is if it occurs on the national level.

This type of bipartisan coalition building in regard to campaign finance reform is unlikely to happen again, however. This is due to the fact that after Citizens United v FEC, a precedent was set that campaign reform should be in the hands of the courts rather than the legislature or the executive.

Policy Options

The most impactful government action regarding campaign finance is the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v FEC. Prior to this case, the government was able to restrict donations from wealthy donors and corporations, limiting the influence of one individual on any given election. In a 5-4 decision, the court overturned this proposition, ruling that the First Amendment protects political expenditures under the freedom of speech clause.

As a result, the government is no longer allowed to restrict corporate or individual contributions to campaigns, thus allowing unlimited financial influence on elections. Since the decision, interest groups have spent $4.4 billion on campaigns, and campaign expenditures have grown tremendously: 86% of all donations in the past 30 years occurred in the 10 after Citizens United (Rep. Steny Hoyer).

The creation of super PACs — a political action committee which can contribute unlimited amounts of money — doubled from 2014 to 2018 (Center for Responsive Politics). However, in March 2019, House Democrats passed The For the People Act, a bill which aimed to curb the effects of the Court’s decision and reinstate contribution limits.

The Act bans foreign money in campaigns, requires organizations to disclose all of their donors and expresses disdain for outside influence in our elections. In spite of attempted reform, dark money and the influence of big donors remained a problem in the 2022 election, as a result of a lack of contribution limits and government regulation of political funding. Had the court ruled differently in Citizens United, it is probable that this would not be such a prevalent issue today.