5014291

Price of Politics

Everyone knows when it is election season. The air cools, posters line the streets, and ads

fill the airwaves. Politics are everywhere. Recent elections have drawn millions to the polls, all

hoping that their vote will make a difference. Candidates have the same hope. Candidates spend

months, if not years, figuring out how to attract voters. They craft messages, garner support, and

motivate the public to vote for them. Campaigns are an art and a science. Those in charge have to

decide where and when to spend their time and money. Candidates make a bet on what America

wants from a leader and spend millions to make sure their ideas resonate.

Political campaigns have always caught my attention. I credit it to my birthday on

January 20th. This traditionally cold January day is typically the same day as the presidential

inauguration. I have a distinct memory of staying home from school on my birthday to watch

Barack Obama’s second inauguration. This memory flashes forward, every time I see a campaign

poster. Every two years I have this opportunity. The chance to watch our democracy move

forward. These days I pay attention to every campaign. Whether it be the presidential, school

board, or the Wisconsin Supreme Court, I will tune in. I have been watching campaigns for the

past five years, with this past election cycle being the most fascinating. Even with my limited

experience, I have seen campaigns change. The largest disruption in political campaigns has been

money. Every election is more expensive than the one before, with presidential elections now

costing over a billion dollars. The need for financing has forced politicians to rely on special

interests and Super PACs. Candidates know that they need money to win, and these organizations

have the resources to help. It often seems that politicians and candidates spend more and more

time focused on fundraising, rather than helping the American people. As campaigns become

more expensive, they push away working class Americans from candidacy. With the average

1
 5014291

campaign costing millions of dollars, every day Americans simply do not have the resources to

run. Campaigns force candidates to quit their job in the hope of being elected to office, a

sacrifice most people can not make. This problem of major spending has been growing for a long

time in America. The largest jump was in the 2008 campaign for president with an increase of

$800 million (“Presidential Campaign Receipts”). As campaigns continue to get more expensive,

I chose to examine the impact and influence of money political campaigns as the topic for my

Senior Project.

Every election costs more than the one before. The 2008 election was no exception, and ,

and in fact, accelerated spending and created an unfortunate precedent. The 2008 presidential

election was one of change. Brought on by Barack Obama, the Illinois Democrat won in a

landslide, winning the electoral college by 192 votes as well as the popular vote by eight percent.

His victory can be credited to a multitude of factors, including his unique candidacy as the first

black major party nominee for president, meaningful message, and his ability to fundraise. Prior

to the 2008 election, all major party candidates opted into the Public Funding Program. This is a

program that provides funding for presidential campaigns with a grant of $20 million plus a cost

of living adjustment. The main requirement being that candidates do not receive private funding

for their campaign (“Public Funding of Presidential Elections”). The one exception to this rule is

if the candidate uses the private contributions for legal funds or what is otherwise known as

General Election Legal and Compliance. The grant was a way to level the playing field and give

all candidates adequate funds to run an election. Barack Obama saw the public funding option as

a hindrance rather than a tool, so “in 2008, Barack Obama became the first to give up this public

funding so that he could spend more than the limit of $84.1 million (which his opponent, John

McCain, adhered to)”(Cagé). By opting out of public funding, Obama was able to outraise his

2
 5014291

opponent, John McCain, by over $300 million dollars. By the end of the campaign, Obama had

spent $745.7 million compared to McCain’s $350.1 million (“Receipts through September 30,

2008”). The majority of McCain’s funding came from his primary campaign where he refused

public funding and was allowed to accept private donations. By accepting public funding in the

general election, John McCain placed himself in a fundraising disadvantage. This disparity in

funding caused the 2008 election to be the most expensive at the time. The cost of the previous

four elections prior to 2008 cost the following: 1996: $447 million, 2000: $650 million, 2004: $1

billion, and 2008: $1.8 billion (“Presidential Campaign Receipts”). These totals include the

entire election cycle including primaries. Declining the public funding option showed candidates

the advantages of fundraising compared to public funding.. With the cost of running elections

constantly rising, candidates have no choice but to decline public funding.

The consequences of Obama's decision are clear. While it did allow a path to the White

House for President Obama, The Brookings Institute believes that “the decision by presumptive

Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama to decline the public grant of $84 million for his

general election campaign has been widely viewed as, and harshly criticized for, administering

the final death blow to the presidential public financing system”(Mann). In every election since

candidates have declined public funding, and this change in fundraising strategy has dramatically

shifted how presidential campaigns are run. Now more than ever there is an emphasis on the

individual donor, specifically the small donor. In his 2020 presidential campaign, Joe Biden

relied heavily on individual donors. He had more than 500,000 donors donate between

$200-$499 (Donor Demographics) along with the $406,562,408 he raised from donations under

$200 (“Biden, Joseph”). These small donations make a significant portion of funding for

presidential elections. His opponent Donald Trump had similar success with 48% of Trump’s

3
 5014291

funding coming from donations under $200 (“Trump, Donald”). These small donations are

contributions from everyday Americans. They are from the school teacher, farmers, and the rest

of the American workforce. This is why “fundraising by the candidates appears more an

indicator of their electoral appeal than a cause of it” (Mann). In today’s presidential elections,

support from small donors not only shows a committed voter base, but also helps build support

and funds to reach undecided voters who change their minds election to election. Candidates

spend their money on ads and outreach in order to convince these voters. Whether a national

presidential election or a smaller city election, these same principles hold true across the board.

The trend of increased election costs holds true for congressional, senate, state, and local

elections. In an ever polarizing democracy, donors, small and large, want their views heard. The

2018 midterm elections, much like the 2010 midterms, saw the president's party lose

congressional seats in a dramatic fashion as a reaction to a new president. In 2010, Republicans

picked up 61 new seats and in 2018, the Democrats picked up 41. Both of these elections had

similar outcomes, but with very different fundraising. The 2010 midterm saw no major change in

congressional fundraising. Republicans outraised Democrats by $78 million (“Raising by the

Numbers 2010”) and saw no major jump in overall spending. In 2018, however, Democrats left

nothing to chance and entered the midterms determined to win back the House. Led by Nancy

Pelosi (D-CA), House Democrats raised more than $1 billion, and outspent their Republican

opponents by $400 million (“Raising by the Numbers 2018”). This fundraising increase saw the

cost of an average winning House race jump from $1.5 million to $2 million (“Election Trends”).

In 2022, the average winning congressional campaign cost over $2.7 million (“Election Trends”).

The need for fundraising has had a detrimental effect on our government, especially in the House

of Representatives who run for their seats every two years. In order to run for re-election,

4
 5014291

members of Congress have to be constantly raising money. Shortly after his 2014 victory,

Representative David Jolly (R-FL) was told about the need to fundraise, “​​We sat behind closed

doors at one of the party headquarter back rooms in front of a white board where the equation

was drawn out. You have six months until the election. Break that down to having to raise $2

million in the next six months. And your job, new member of Congress, is to raise $18,000 a day.

Your first responsibility is to make sure you hit $18,000 a day.” (O’Donnell). Congress members

are constantly asking for money. Representative Rick Nolan (D-MN) says that members of

congress spend over 30 hours a week soliciting donations (O’Donell). Members now spend more

time than ever on the phone, at rallies, and back in their districts trying to earn donations. The

result of this is less governing. Congress simply does not have time to achieve their goals. A

2013 Democratic Congress member orientation schedule recommended that members should

spend four hours a day fundraising, while only spending 2 on the business of Congress

(O’Donnell). The need for money, in order to run a competitive campaign, has made congress

inefficient and ineffective.

In modern elections, there are three types of Political Action Committees (PACs). These

PACs are organizations that can receive donations to help a candidate win re-election. The first

of the three is a Principal Campaign Committee. Examples of these committees are: Barbara Lee

for Congress, Friends of Schumer, and Warnock for Georgia. They are created as the primary

method of funding for candidates. They currently have an individual donation cap of $2,900 and

a yearly donation limit of $5,800. The next type is a Joint Fundraising Committee, or more

commonly called a victory fund. This is a separate committee that works with the principal

campaign committee as well as an organized Party committee. An example of this would be the

Nancy Pelosi Victory Fund. This Joint Committee is a combination of Nancy Pelosi for

5
 5014291

Congress, Pac of the Future, and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. This is

used to provide additional funding for the candidates, as well as the connected organizations. The

final group is a Super Pac. Super PACS have no limits on their fundraising or spending.

However, they can not make direct contributions to candidates. While any coordination between

candidates and Super PACS is illegal, these rules are often violated as Super PACS spend their

resources to influence elections. To learn more about political fundraising, I interviewed Annie

Weir. Mrs. Weir is a political expert and fundraiser. She has spent years in politics, working for

individuals like Diane Finstien (D-CA) and former presidential candidate Hilary Clinton, before

opening her own political consulting firm. In our conversation, she talked about the impact PACs

and independent expenditure groups can have on an election, “If you're an independent group,

you can really shuffle the board pieces.” She then shared, “As fair as politics can be, there are

rules to govern it, but nothing is preventing billionaires like George Soros or the Koch Brothers

from writing a $5 million dollar check and bombing it at the last moment.” This dilemma of a

candidate running a successful campaign, only to be defeated at the last minute by a Super Pac,

is far too common. One example that Mrs. Weir shared was the 2013 New York mayoral

election. This race was Christine Quinn’s to lose, early polling showed her ahead of her

opponents by 13 points (Dems Top Kelly). “[Christine Quinn] was destined to become the next

mayor…then Anthony Weiner joined the race and muddied the waters,” Weir says. She blames

Quinns loss on Weiner and an aligned Super PAC entering the race. “Anthony Weiner has a

SuperPac group “Nyeclass” spread a rumor that Christine abused animals”. While there were

criminal charges brought against the people behind these ads, these accusations proved to be

enough to lose Christine Quinn the election. Special interest and independent expenditure

6
 5014291

groups change elections. Candidates need money to respond, but money does not always mean a

victory.

We have seen how money helps candidates win elections, but what other effects does it

have on an election and the political process. To learn more about this, I talked to James Schwab.

Mr. Schwab is the State Director for Senator Alex Padilla (D-CA). He is one of Senator Padillas

most trusted aides and has experience working with the Senator during his time as California’s

Secretary of State. Mr. Schwab also briefly served as acting California Secretary of state during

Padillas transition to Senate. The first thing that he mentioned is how money does not only play a

powerful role in candidate elections, but also how laws are made. According to Mr. Schwab,

“money can buy laws.” Can individuals go to the store and purchase new regulations? No.

However those with the resources can hire influential lobbyists and buy advertisements to push

through their desired legislation in both state and federal legislatures. This has been a problem in

the American political system for a long time, and California is no exception. The origins of the

proposition system can be traced back to the early 1900s. The California legislature was

controlled by the Southern Pacific Railroad Company. Bribes were widespread and they had

support of the majority of the legislature. In response to this, small groups of legislators rose to

power and added propositions into law in 1911. Since then propositions have seen the

elimination of the poll tax, granting women the right to vote, and the legalization of marijuana.

The proposition system can be used to promote real change, but now according to Schwab, “it is

a way to buy laws companies disagree with.” An example that he gave was the recent Prop 22,

“The legislature passed a law that required Uber and Lyft drivers to be considered employees

rather than independent contractors. The companies did not like this and funded their own

proposition against it, “(Prop 22) was promoted as a way to allow workers to retain their

7
 5014291

independent status and flexibility while freeing gig companies from paying overtime and other

expenses under California’s worker-friendly labor laws” (Cutler). This proposition was created to

help companies change the law that had a negative impact on their business model. This

proposition came at a cost, “The coalition spent more than $200 million to get Prop. 22” (Cutler).

In California especially, propositions are a major aspect of a campaign season. Everyday on

television, ads for and against each proposition fill the airwaves. Each one of these

advertisements come at a cost and are being funded by some group or individual. In order to

better fulfill one’s civic duty of voting, people need to take the time and research who is funding

each proposition and candidate.

While many experts argue about the best path forward for campaigns, there are a few

solutions that rise to the top. The first is the small fund matching model. This is a proposed

system, where candidates can opt into fund matching for small contributions. The main idea

behind this model is to incentivise small donations, and for candidates to focus on everyday

citizens they serve, instead of corporations and CEO’s. A good example of this is in New York.

In 2020, the New York State legislature passed a program to create the New York State Public

Campaign Finance Board. The way the board works is:

“The matching system for legislative candidates is a little more involved with a

tier system, going from 12-to-1 for the first $50, 9-to-1 for the next $100, and

ending at 8-to-1 for the final $100. That means that a $250 donation results in

$2,550 for a candidate that qualifies for the public funds. Statewide candidates

can get a maximum of $7 million in matching funds combined for the primary and

general, state Senate candidates max out at $750,000 and Assembly candidates

can receive up to $350,000.”(Lewis).

8
 5014291

By matching small contributions, this program helps small, grassroots candidates, who

don't have established fundraising capacity. It motivates candidates to go out into their

communities and connect with their constituents. With this program, donations have to be

in their district. This requirement for in-district matched donations, forces politicians

back into their district and off the national fundraising stage. Like many campaign

finance reforms, this one is facing challenges. While the proposal passed, it has yet to be

funded. The New York State Public Campaign Finance Board is requesting a budget of

$114.5 million for 2023-2024 (“About the Public”). There is ongoing debate about the

merits of funding the program over other budget items.

A major issue with campaign finance reform is the lack of public knowledge

about the topic. In their book Campaign Finance & American Democracy, Political

Scientist David Primo and Jeffery Milyo explain how most Americans do not understand

the issue at all. They write, “Americans know virtually nothing about federal campaign

finance laws in the United States. This does not stop Americans from having opinions on

the role of money in the American political system”(Milyo). Primo and Milyo argue that

reform will have no real impact on public perception because Americans will always

have distrust in politics and their campaigns. They cite a study that shows 90% of

Americans think there is too much money in politics and 75% think that elected office is

for sale to the highest bidder (Milyo). With this much distrust in our system, Primo and

Milyo argue that reforms are pointless. Another argument against reforms is their cost.

This very argument is one that is holding up the New York State Public Campaign

Finance Board. Lawmakers are asking themselves if it is worth it to fund this unproven

program. While election reforms work at increasing public participation, representatives

9
 5014291

struggle to fund them over programs with a proven track record. We as a country need to

ask ourselves is it worth it, and what do we want to achieve from these reforms?

Campaign finance reform is a complex issue that needs to be addressed, but the

fact that money is so ingrained in our political process, it is difficult to expect any

substantial change. Throughout my research, there were a few approaches that seemed

worthy of exploring further.The first is decreasing the amount of PAC money in

elections. This idea is becoming increasingly popular with more progressive candidates

and those who want to show they are not part of the establishment. A more substantial

step would be amending the constitution to overturn Citizens United as proposed in 2022

by Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA). He introduced a proposed amendment that

would give congress more authority to regulate elections. In today's political climate this

bill has no real chance of passing; however, it puts an important issue on the table and

puts more pressure on politicians to make changes to the election laws.

Unfortunately, elections will continue to be expensive until significant change

happens within our system. The 2020 elections cost $14.4 billion (Evers). In my mind,

this is $14.4 billion that could be used to help the homeless, establish universal Pre-K, or

eliminate student debt. All of these initiatives need funding, and I believe money from

campaigns could be redirected to fund other important priorities. Change might not be

around the corner, but by putting good individuals in power, individuals that care about

their constituents, care about their country, and care about the greater good, something

will change. If we stay down this path, the amount of money in politics will only grow.

Change is needed, but who will take the lead?

10
 5014291

Works Cited

“About the Public Campaign Finance Board.” New York State Public Campaign Finance Board,

https://pcfb.ny.gov/about-public-campaign-finance-board. Accessed 20 March 2023.

Cagé, Julia. “How Barack Obama Spurred the End of America’s Public Presidential Election

Funding System.” ProMarket, 27 April 2020,

https://www.promarket.org/2020/04/27/how-barack-obama-spurred-the-end-of-americas-

public-presidential-election-funding-system/. Accessed 20 March 2023.

Cutler, Joyce E. “Uber, Lyft Can Treat Drivers as Contractors, Court Rules (1).” Bloomberg Law

News, 13 March 2023,

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/uber-lyft-backed-proposition-22-upheld-uni

onizing-ban-struck. Accessed 22 March 2023.

“Dems Top Kelly Big Time In New York City Mayoral Race, Quinnipiac University Poll Finds;

Voters Like Kelly As Top Cop, Not As Mayor.” Quinnipiac Polls, 2013,

https://poll.qu.edu/Poll-Release-Legacy?releaseid=1747. Accessed 20 March 2023.

“Donor Demographics, federal election data for Joe Biden 2020 cycle.” OpenSecrets,

https://www.opensecrets.org/2020-presidential-race/joe-biden/demographics?id=N00001

669. Accessed 20 March 2023.

“Election Trends • OpenSecrets.” OpenSecrets,

https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/election-trends. Accessed 20 March

2023.

Evers, Karl. “Most expensive ever: 2020 election cost $14.4 billion • OpenSecrets.”

OpenSecrets, 11 February 2021,

11
 5014291

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2021/02/2020-cycle-cost-14p4-billion-doubling-16/.

Accessed 20 March 2023.

Federal Election Commission. “TRUMP, DONALD J.” FEC: Home,

https://www.fec.gov/data/candidate/P80001571/. Accessed 20 March 2023.

Federal Election Commission. “BIDEN, JOSEPH R JR.”

https://www.fec.gov/data/candidate/P80000722/. Accessed 20 March 2023.

Federal Election Commission. “Presidential Campaign Receipts.”

https://www.fec.gov/resources/news_releases/2009/20090608Pres/1_OverviewPresFinAc

tivity1996-2008.pdf. Accessed 20 March 2023.

Federal Election Commission. “Presidential Campaign Receipts Through September 30, 2008.”

https://www.fec.gov/resources/campaign-finance-statistics/2008/tables/presidential/presre

ceipts_2008_m10.pdf. Accessed 20 March 2023.

Hua, Charles. “Campaign Finance: How did Money Influence 2020 U.S. Senate Elections?”

Harvard Political Review, 8 May 2021,

https://harvardpolitics.com/campaign-finance-how-did-money-influence-2020-u-s-senate

-elections/. Accessed 20 March 2023.

Koerth, Maggie. “How Money Affects Elections.” FiveThirtyEight, 10 September 2018,

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/money-and-elections-a-complicated-love-story/.

Accessed 20 March 2023.

Lewis, Rebecca C. “What you need to know about New York's new statewide public campaign

finance program.” City & State New York, 2 December 2022,

https://www.cityandstateny.com/policy/2022/12/what-you-need-know-about-new-yorks-n

ew-statewide-public-campaign-finance-program/380387/. Accessed 20 March 2023.

12
 5014291

Mann, Thomas. “Money in the 2008 Elections: Bad News or Good?” Brookings, 1 July 2008,

https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/money-in-the-2008-elections-bad-news-or-good/.

Accessed 20 March 2023.

Milyo, Jeffrey D., and David M. Primo. Campaign Finance and American Democracy: What the

Public Really Thinks and Why It Matters. University of Chicago Press, 2020.

O'Donnell, Norah. “Are members of Congress becoming telemarketers?” CBS News, 24 April

2016,

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-are-members-of-congress-becoming-telemar

keters/. Accessed 20 March 2023.

“Public funding of presidential elections.” FEC,

https://www.fec.gov/introduction-campaign-finance/understanding-ways-support-federal-

candidates/presidential-elections/public-funding-presidential-elections/. Accessed 20

March 2023.

“Raising By the Numbers 2010.” Federal Election Commission,

https://www.fec.gov/data/raising-bythenumbers/?office=H&election_year=2010.

Accessed 20 March 2023.

“Raising by the Numbers 2018.” Federal Election Commission,

https://www.fec.gov/data/raising-bythenumbers/?office=H&election_year=2018.

Accessed 20 March 2023.

“Reelection Rates Over the Years • OpenSecrets.” OpenSecrets,

https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/reelection-rates. Accessed 20 March

2023.

13
 5014291

Scherer, Zachary. “What Methods Did People Use to Vote in the 2020 Election?” Census Bureau,

29 April 2021,

https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/04/what-methods-did-people-use-to-vote-in-

2020-election.html. Accessed 20 March 2023.

Schwab, James. Zoom Interview with James Schwab. 21 March 2023.

Tedford, Karen. In Person Interview with Karen Tedford. 18 March 2023.

Weir, Annie. Zoom Interview with Annie Weir. 5 March 2023.

14