Money In Politics: Power Of Campaign Donations

Political campaigns are expensive affairs, with presidential campaigns in the US costing upwards of $4 billion. Candidates for political office need money to fund their campaigns and to demonstrate the breadth of their support. The money is spent on research, travel, events, advertising, and more. Candidates raise these funds from individuals, political party committees, and political action committees (PACs). While there are strict limits on how much can be donated to a candidate's official campaign, donors can give unlimited amounts by contributing to other entities. The US system has been criticised for allowing big money to dominate political campaigns and drown out the voices of ordinary Americans. There is bipartisan support for limiting campaign spending and reducing the influence of large donors.

Explore related products

The Campaign Manager

$40.62 $62.99

The Political Campaign Desk Reference: A Guide for Campaign Managers, Professionals and Candidates Running for Office

$16.26 $19.95

Words to Win By: The Slogans, Logos, and Designs of America's Presidential Elections

$13 $24.99

The Political Campaign Desk Reference: A Guide for Campaign Managers, Operatives, and Candidates Running for Political Office

$18.95

Running For Local Office For Dummies

$13.49 $22.99

The Art of the Political Campaign: How to run for elected office with no money, name recognition or political connections

$9.99

People donate to candidates they believe in

Political campaigns can be costly affairs, and candidates need funding to cover their expenses. While some candidates for local office may be able to fund their campaigns using their savings or small contributions from family and friends, running for national office, especially for president, requires a lot more money. In the 2019–20 election cycle, for example, U.S. presidential campaigns raised and spent $4.1 billion.

In addition to individual donors, candidates also receive funding from political party committees and political action committees (PACs). PACs are groups that solicit donations from members and associates to make campaign contributions or fund campaign activities, such as advertising. There are different types of PACs, including labour PACs, business PACs, and leadership PACs, which are operated by members of Congress to contribute funds to political allies. While there are limits to how much PACs can contribute to political campaigns, these limits are often higher than those for individual donors. For example, in the U.S., PACs can contribute up to $5,000 per election to federal candidates, and since the primary and general elections are counted separately, they can give a maximum of $10,000 to one candidate in a typical election year.

The amount of money an individual can donate to a single candidate is capped, and there are rules in place for how that money can be spent. In the U.S., for example, donations of more than $200 to federal candidates, PACs, or parties must be itemized and disclosed to the Federal Election Commission, along with the donor's name, address, employer, and occupation. These records are publicly available. There are also rules for how money can be used after a campaign ends. For example, campaign funds cannot be used for personal expenses, and any remaining funds may need to be refunded to donors or redistributed with their permission.

Donations can be used for personal gain

Political campaigns can raise millions, if not billions, of dollars through personal and business donations. This money is used to pay for travel, administration, salaries, and any other campaign-related expenses. While there are rules in place that dictate how money can be spent after a campaign concludes, there are still ways in which donations can be used for personal gain.

Firstly, it is important to note that there are no limits to how much money a candidate can contribute to their own campaign, as long as it is their own money. This means that wealthy individuals can essentially "buy" political office by self-financing their campaigns. Once in office, they can use their position to further their own interests and those of their social class, thereby gaining personal advantages that may not have been accessible to them otherwise.

Secondly, while personal use of campaign funds is prohibited, there are ways to circumvent this. For example, candidates can hire family members as campaign staff and pay them salaries, as long as they provide a bona fide service to the campaign. This blurs the line between personal and campaign expenses, allowing for potential abuse. Additionally, leadership PACs, which are created to back other candidates and a political agenda, have been criticised as being used as slush funds due to the few restrictions on their spending. This lack of oversight can lead to funds being redirected for personal gain.

Furthermore, super PACs, which are independent expenditure-only political committees, can accept unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations, and organisations. While they cannot coordinate directly with a federal candidate, they can support the same candidate in future elections or another candidate with similar ideologies. This allows super PACs to exert significant influence over politicians, potentially gaining them favour with those in office. Additionally, while super PACs are supposed to refund donors if the candidate drops out, this is not always done, and the remaining funds can be used for purposes other than the original intent.

Finally, while not directly related to personal gain, the influence of large donors in political campaigns has been a cause for public concern. In the 2024 election, Elon Musk donated $277 million to Trump and allied Republicans, making him the single largest individual political donor. This type of donation can drown out the voices of ordinary Americans and give the donor disproportionate influence over political agendas. This imbalance in power can lead to policies and decisions that favour the donor's interests, creating an unequal playing field.

Political campaigns are expensive

There are several factors that contribute to the high cost of political campaigns. One factor is the cost of advertising. Advertising is a significant expense for political campaigns, as it is an effective way to reach a large number of voters. In the United States, there are no limits on how much an individual or group can spend on advertising for a candidate, as long as it is not coordinated with the campaign. This allows Super PACs to have a significant influence on the outcome of elections.

Another factor contributing to the high cost of political campaigns is the cost of travel and events. Candidates often need to travel extensively to meet with voters and attend rallies, dinners, and other campaign events. This can be especially costly for candidates running for national office, who may need to travel across the country.

Additionally, political campaigns also incur costs associated with research and polling. Candidates may need to conduct research on their opponents and poll voters to gauge their support and adjust their messaging accordingly.

The high cost of political campaigns has led to concerns about the influence of large donors and the impact on electoral democracy. Critics argue that the high cost of campaigns gives an advantage to candidates who can attract large donations, drowning out the voices of ordinary citizens. There is widespread public support for limiting campaign spending and reducing the influence of large donors. However, there is no broad agreement on how to reform the system.

Explore related products

Game Changers: How Dark Money and Super PACs Are Transforming U.S. Campaigns

$13.49 $35

OECD Public Governance Reviews Financing Democracy Funding of Political Parties and Election Campaigns and the Risk of Policy Capture

$6.33 $48

State Capture: Corruption And Election Campaign Funding

$11.99

The Victory Lab: The Secret Science of Winning Campaigns

$15.06 $19

Campaigns and Elections: Players and Processes

$83.6 $110

How to Run for Political Office and Win Everything You Need to Know to Get Elected

$19.95

Large donors have more influence

Secondly, the way campaign finance laws are structured in the United States allows donors to give unlimited amounts of money by contributing to multiple entities. While there are limits on how much can be donated directly to a candidate's official campaign, donors can circumvent these restrictions by giving to political action committees (PACs) and political party committees. Super PACs, in particular, can accept unlimited donations and spend this money on advertising and other campaign activities without coordinating with the candidate's official campaign. This allows wealthy individuals and corporations to exert considerable influence over the political process.

Additionally, large donors often have closer relationships with politicians and can more easily access them. This provides an opportunity for donors to discuss their interests and priorities directly with the candidates, potentially influencing their policies and decisions. This access is not typically afforded to small donors or ordinary citizens.

Furthermore, large donors may be more likely to receive favourable treatment from politicians and have their concerns addressed. A study found that among those who had donated more than $250 to a candidate or campaign in the past year, a higher percentage believed that their representative in Congress would help them with a problem. This suggests that large donors may feel they have a stronger influence over politicians due to their financial contributions.

Finally, large donors can contribute to shaping the political agenda and public discourse. By funding specific campaigns or candidates, they can promote their interests and values, which may not always align with those of the general public. This can result in certain issues being prioritized over others and can influence the policies that are ultimately implemented.

While there are rules and regulations in place to control campaign contributions and expenditures, the influence of large donors remains a significant concern for many Americans. There is widespread support for limiting campaign spending and reducing the role of money in politics.

Campaign finance laws vary

Despite these regulations, critics argue that "big money" from wealthy individuals and organisations continues to dominate US political campaigns, drowning out the voices of ordinary Americans. This is evident in the 2024 election cycle, where Elon Musk donated $277 million to Trump and allied Republicans, making him the largest individual political donor.

At the state and local levels, laws governing campaign finance differ. Over half the states allow some corporate and union contributions, and several states impose no limits on campaign donations. For example, Seattle voters approved a Democracy Voucher program, providing residents with vouchers to donate to participating candidates. In contrast, Massachusetts has had a hybrid public funding system since 1978, where taxpayers can contribute $1 to a statewide election fund on their income taxes, which candidates with spending limits can access.

The impact of campaign spending is a topic of debate. While some argue that money is crucial for electoral success, others, like academic Geoffrey Cowan, suggest that it is not a guarantee. For instance, Donald Trump's victory over well-financed opponents demonstrates the limits of money in politics. Nonetheless, the perception of influence remains, as seen in a 2018 opinion poll where 74% of Americans believed it was essential for large donors to political campaigns not to have more political influence than others.

Frequently asked questions