ANNAPOLIS, Md. - Public outrage over the influence of money in politics continues to grow - as seen in both the Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump campaigns. And now a new study provides compelling evidence that the U.S. political system is more "one dollar one vote" than "one person one vote.”
Thomas Ferguson, director of research with the Institute for New Economic Thinking in New York, and his team examined data on Congressional races and discovered a stark correlation.
"Basically, you get the percentage of votes that you have of the percentage of money,” Ferguson said. "It's an amazingly crass relationship, and it's very direct and it holds for hundreds of elections."
Researchers created a chart to track spending and votes in U.S. Senate and House races since 1980. Ferguson explained that if there was no relationship between money and votes, the chart would be scattered.
Almost without exception, he said, the results produced a straight line. When parties spent little-to-no-money, they got few votes; when they spent the most money, they received the most votes.
Ferguson said the research supported findings from a Princeton and Northwestern University study that showed the poor and middle class have virtually zero influence on government when policies are opposed by the wealthiest Americans.
He cited the preference by a majority of corporations and top earners for lower taxes as one example of what can happen when politics are driven by money.
"The rest of us have to live with the consequences of that: roads that don't work, schools that are collapsing,” Ferguson said. "And the notion that the last dollar rather than the last votes should determine things strikes me as a crazy idea."
Ferguson said he hopes the data will force a conversation about the need to create a more democratic political system in the U.S.
He said publicly financing elections and free and equal time on publicly owned airwaves for candidates could be good first steps towards reducing the influence of money in politics.
get more stories like this via email
Undisclosed funding, or "dark money," is pumping into the 2024 election cycle.
Political spending by donors who stay hidden is reaching record highs, according to a report by OpenSecrets.
Author Anna Massoglia - the editorial and investigations manager at Open Secrets - said dark money might be coming from shadowy shell companies or non-profits, and often funds misleading attack ads against candidates from either party.
"When you have dark-money groups fueling this spending," said Massoglia, "the voter may not know what interest the secret donors behind that have in getting a specific candidate elected, a ballot measure passed or any other policy issue."
In 2022, OpenSecrets found that the Conservative Americans PAC spent more than $2.4 million in GOP primary races for U.S. House seats in Missouri, Tennessee and Arizona.
They discovered the super PAC was bankrolled by undisclosed American Economic Freedom Alliance and American Prosperity Alliance support prior to the votes.
Supporters of dark money donations argue they are a form of free speech, and in fact courts have often found that political donations are protected by the First Amendment.
Campaign watchdogs argue in return that even if donations are a form of protected speech, nothing stops the government from requiring full disclosure of who the donations are coming from - and without that, campaign advertising becomes inherently deceptive.
Massoglia says it really varies from one state to the next, in terms of which party and which side of the aisle is benefiting more. And, the patchwork of limits and disclosure rules vary greatly across the states.
"In some states, you can actually have 501(c)(4) dark-money groups or shell companies contribute directly to candidates' campaigns," said Massoglia, "which is something that's not allowed at the federal level. They're only allowed to spend in support of the candidate."
Massoglia emphasized that while dark money can come from various sources, it often comes from one type.
She said 501(c)(4) nonprofits are supposed to exist for social welfare purposes, but due to few restrictions on their spending they are able to spend practically unlimited sums on elections without ever disclosing their donors.
get more stories like this via email
Oregon lawmakers took a step toward limiting the impact of money on elections during the legislative session.
Lawmakers passed House Bill 2024, a campaign finance reform package that limits the amount single donors can contribute to campaigns. Limits haven't existed in the state since the 1970s.
Contributions will be capped at $3,300 - per candidate, per election.
House Speaker state Rep. Julie Fahey - D-Eugene - championed the bill.
In her first campaign for office, she faced candidates funded by large donations from wealthy donors - and said the experience inspired her to change the law.
"It really was that first challenging election cycle that cemented in my mind how important it was that we reform our campaign finance system," said Fahey, "in part because we need to make running for office more accessible to brand new candidates like I was."
Oregon voters have shown they're ready for limits on campaign contributions. They wrote them into the the state constitution in 2020.
This year, Honest Elections and the League of Women Voters had collected nearly enough signatures for a measure to put campaign finance reform on the November ballot.
Fahey noted that the bill doesn't just limit contributions.
"We also created new kinds of small donor pacs and membership organization pacs," said Fahey, "that will make sure that we can incentivize the kind of pro-democracy campaigning that we really want to see more of."
Common Cause Oregon Director Kate Titus said these changes have taken effort from a lot of people over a long period time.
"It's such a complex issue, campaign finance reform," said Titus, "and it's one of the toughest ones to fight because it gets at the heart of power in politics. Anyone who gains power through money has the power to resist."
The new campaign finance laws go into effect in 2027.
get more stories like this via email
Maine could become the first state in the nation to provide public funding to candidates seeking the office of district attorney.
Lawmakers are considering the first expansion of the state's Clean Election Act since 1996 to help ensure county-level races are not influenced by wealthy donors.
Anna Kellar, executive director of Maine Citizens for Clean Elections, said local and state law enforcement positions are increasingly gaining national attention and drawing large amounts of out-of-state spending.
"We see this really as a way of ensuring that this part of our justice system is fully accountable to the voters and able to be independent of their campaign donors," Kellar explained.
Kellar contended providing public funding for district attorney races will increase the pool of candidates with diverse career backgrounds, including public defenders. The legislation has passed a committee with bipartisan support.
Maine voters passed the Maine Clean Elections Act as a citizen initiative in 1996, creating a voluntary program of public financing of political campaigns for governor, state Senator and state Representative.
Candidates who participate can accept limited private contributions to start their campaigns but once they receive money from the state's Clean Elections Fund, they can no longer accept private donations.
Kellar argued the law ensures candidates have enough to run viable, fair campaigns.
"What we often see is if there are races where there are both clean elections candidates, they start out on that equal playing field and that also really helps reduce the need for that outside spending," Kellar observed.
Kellar emphasized the public should trust candidates for county-level law enforcement positions, including sheriff and district attorney, are impartial and will create agendas to benefit the public rather than donor's interests. She added Maine's "clean elections" have provided a great blueprint for other states, and wants the legislature to expand the law to ensure the example continues.
Support for this reporting was provided by The Carnegie Corporation of New York.
get more stories like this via email