William_T._Bianco,_David_T._Canon]_American_Polit

Take a Stand 325

Is There Too Much Money

in Politics?

Campaign finance regulations place restrictions on what

Americans can do to influence election outcomes—but

should they? Suppose you are a wealthy person or the head

of a corporation with deep pockets. Under current law, you

and your corporation can only donate about $15,000 to a

candidate’s campaign; corporations have to form a PAC to do

so and cannot pay for the contribution with business revenues.

You can also form one of several types of organizations that

can spend unlimited money to run campaign ads designed to

help elect your preferred candidates, or you can donate to an

existing organization. Clearly, having money gives you options

for participation in American elections that are not open to the

average citizen. Is that a good thing?

It’s a free country, and spending money on politics

is part of that freedom. Limits on campaign spending

conflict with fundamental tenets of American democracy. The

Bill of Rights states that Congress cannot abridge “freedom

of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably

to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of

grievances.” One interpretation of the First Amendment that

has shaped recent Supreme Court decisions on campaign

finance is that people should be free to spend whatever they

want on contesting elections—excluding bribes, threats, and

other illegal actions, of course.

Another argument for eliminating limits on political

activities is that with one exception (donations to 501[c][4]

organizations), donors and political activists are required to

file quarterly reports on their campaign activities. Therefore,

other activists and even ordinary citizens would quickly learn

of any large-scale attempts to manipulate election outcomes

and could decide to work for the other side or simply vote

against a big donor’s preferred candidates.

And ultimately, given that campaign spending is no

guarantee of electoral success, it is not clear that eliminating

spending limits would give big donors control over election

outcomes.

Campaign contributions need to be constrained.

Even if there’s no evidence that money buys elections, there

is also no guarantee that under the right circumstances a

big donation or ad campaign would not make the difference

for one or more candidates. Because money for ads is a

necessary component of a political campaign, the possibility

remains that a rich donor could change election outcomes by

TAKE

A S TA N D

giving large sums to challengers in congressional elections.

And in close races, giving a candidate extra funds to increase

his or her GOTV efforts or to run additional campaign ads

might be enough to change the outcome.

With this possibility in mind, it makes sense to place

broad limits on campaign contributions and independent

expenditures to level the playing field between ordinary

citizens and political activists with deep pockets. Just

because someone is rich shouldn’t give him or her additional

ways to influence election outcomes.

Moreover, while it is true that limiting campaign activities

requires imposing limits on speech rights, limitations on civil

liberties are nothing new. All the individual rights set out in

the Bill of Rights are limited in one way or the other. Even

freedom of speech is limited in areas such as hate speech and

statements that pose a clear and present danger. Imposing

limits on campaign activities could be justified on the

grounds that maintaining free and fair elections is important

enough to justify a modest limitation on what individuals and

organizations can do to influence election outcomes.

Does the risk of allowing rich donors disproportionate

power over elections outweigh the dangers associated with

restricting their speech rights?

take a stand

1. Limits on individual campaign contributions guard against
   allowing wealthy people to dominate elections. What are
   some of the possible drawbacks of such regulations?


2. Under current law, corporations and unions (not just
   individuals) are allowed unlimited political expendi-
   tures as long as they are independent of a candidate’s
   campaign organization. Why do you think independent
   expenditures are less regulated than direct contribu-
   tions to campaigns?

Does money equal speech or should campaign contributions

be limited?

Full_10_APT_64431_ch09_296-339.indd 325 16/11/18 1:45 PM