I found a number of aspects of this Politico poll interesting. Let’s ruminate about some of them.
The first question was about whether people thought there was “too much money in politics”. 80% of Harris voters thought so; 77% of Trump voters agreed. I would say that qualifies as a consensus.
While I agree that there’s too much money in politics, I suspect my interpretation of that is different from most. Let’s consider spending in presidential elections since 2008:
And it’s not just presidential elections. Here’s a comparison of the campaign spending in the Democratic primary for U. S. Senate:
Not only was the spending high but note, too, that there’s very little relationship between the amount of money spent and winning an election.
I’m open to explanations for why that be. Here’s my speculation. Campaign spending is shaped by people whose incentives reward spending not efficiency and that is more true for Democrats than Republicans.
I also wonder what correctives people would support? Limits? Disclosure? Public financing? Overturning Citizens United v. FEC?
Here’s another topic on which quite a few people agreed: 61% thought that billionaires wielded too much power in politics (75% of Harris voters agreed). I agree with that, too, but, again, I suspect my interpretation is somewhat different from that of most people. I doubt that billionaires are wielding power by buying candidates or their elections (other than their own elections, of course). I think it’s more subtle (and less defensible) than that. I think that politicians and their consultants are trying to curry favor with the ultra-rich to get them to donate to their campaigns, provide jobs for them, etc.
Here’s a final area of agreement I found somewhat surprising: a majority of Americans (53%) see “special interest” money as corrupting politics rather than as an exercise of freedom of speech. I was unable to identify what was meant by “special interests” or the breakdown of opinion between Harris voters and Trump voters.
In the landmark 1976 Supreme Court case Buckley v. Valeo (424 U.S. 1), William F. Buckley Jr. argued that campaign finance restrictions suppressed free speech. The Court agreed, and restrictions on individual spending were prohibited.
While I can’t find the quote, Buckley (or someone) opined that in reality far too little money was spent on political campaigns, and that many views are thereby denied any public hearing. I believe that opinion is correct.
It is also important that the news media, both broadcast and print, be denied the ability to pick and choose what campaign ads they will accept. The First Amendment does guarantee freedom of the press, but that should not extend to ads the publisher disapproves. The publisher can always add a critique of ads that offend it.
I think there is a lot of unaccounted for spending that OpenSecrets cant track, especially in non-campaign related issues. There is also a lot of stuff like handing out jobs to friends and families of politicians, aiding admission to favored schools, getting favorable court decisions, etc.
On the billionaire issue I think your view is a bit dated. I think that was the norm in the past and it still happens but I think a lot of the super wealthy have become political activists in their own right. Soros and the Koch brothers were early examples, though neither had the time and money to do everything of which they were accused. Now we have examples like the My Pillow guy and Musk. They are very actively of their own volition involved in politics. I also think you underplay the effects of so many billionaires and near billionaires deciding to directly enter politics.
Steve
My observation is if you dig, many people define “special interests” is any organization that lobbies for causes they oppose politically, while every organization lobbying for things they support are as American as apple pie and protected by the First Amendment.
On money and its effect on campaigns, I think Sean Trende mentioned that money helps but only up to a point. Essentially money’s primary leverage is buying the media needed to raise name recognition; but once recognition is saturated spending on media is of decreasing utility. The amount to spend can be smaller then one thinks depending on how media saavy the candidate is and how well known they are already.
Yes. I’m collecting categories like that into a post on political corruption. IMO there is no general agreement on what political corruption is.
That doesn’t explain why Democrats outspent Republicans so greatly. I don’t think it can seriously be contended. that Hillary Clinton was an unknown in 2016, Joe Biden in 2020, or Kamala Harris in 2024.
I think the point is that after you have achieved adequate name recognition the utility of spending decreases. Not to zero but the yield is unpredictable and really related to how much you spend. You can spend a lot but if your candidate is awful it’s hard to overcome. I would also note that multiple sources estimate that the amount of dark money spent in the last few elections is in the billions so it’s hard to tell the true amounts spent. I also think the amount spent on elections is likely dwarfed by the amounts spent on lobbying and buying the votes of politicians by interest groups.
Steve
I was going to point out the Sean Trende analysis on diminishing returns for campaign spending, but CuriousOnlooker beat me to it. I think Kamala showed that you can spend a lot of money inefficiently in politics.
steve, you still haven’t explained why, win or lose, Democrats spend more than Republicans. It’s not name recognition unless you think that Americans weren’t aware of Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, or Kamala Harris. That stretches credulity.
Unless your point is that Democrats have persistently been nominating poor candidates. I concur with that but that brings up the question of why?
I dont really know if Dems spend more since I think the GOP has more organized dark money spending. That said, I think in those specific elections they were spending against Trump and not so much for the candidate. IIRC Clinton was criticized for not really offering much of a positive agenda. Also, I think they spend whatever they receive in donations for the most part. If they get more money they spend it.
So why were Democrats more willing to donate money? Again, I think a large part of that is opposing Trump. Plus, if I am correct about dark money then to stay even they need to spend more money you can track.
Per Chat-GPT
“Billionaires predominantly favor Republicans, with about 72% of their campaign contributions going to support Republican candidates, while only around 22% support Democrats. This trend has intensified in recent election cycles, particularly with the influence of wealthy individuals in the tech industry shifting towards the right”
I also think the very wealthy are good at hiding donations if they want.
Steve
You need to prove that. If, on the other hand, Democrats have more “organized dark money spending”, the problem I’ve highlighted is even more severe. The available evidence suggests that there was far more pro-Harris “organized dark money spending” in 2024 than there was pro-Trump. For example, Future Forward USA spent $304 million in campaign ads, etc. in favor of Harris. To the best of my knowledge there was no comparable spending in favor of Trump.
See, for example, this analysis.
I dont think I can prove it as I am not really talking about organized, monitored dark money. I am talking about money that is given in secret. AS noted, billionaires now favor the GOP and I think they can move money without being tracked if they want. I think a lot of what churches spend on campaign efforts does not get counted. I would add that in the case of Harris she was not a good candidate who was in a bad position due to her late entry. I suspect the spending was partially to try to compensate for those deficiencies.
It also seems like you have what seems like an odd idea about this spending ie that campaign committees are sitting on lots of money and then decide how much of that to spend. I think it’s rather that they spend what is donated. I also think it wrong to isolate on elections. Chat-GPT thinks more money is spent on elections than on lobbying but it limits its estimates to federal elections and it limits it to cash. I think there is a lot of unaccounted for money ie not lobbying, at all levels of government and a lot of in kind trading going on.
Steve
I think it’s rather that expenses in campaigns rise inexorably.
“…. there’s very little relationship between the amount of money spent and winning an election.”
Heh. The big problem is the lobbying money. Here in GA there is a nasty guv campaign between the establishment guy and the “outsider.” Lots of establishment and lots of dark money. For all the money being spent on ads all I can decipher is that Jones is the devil, and Jackson is Lucifer. Oh, and that Jones is “as crooked as a dog’s hind leg.” So there you have it.
Hope you are on the mend, Dave. I had my Watchman and ablation procedure on Monday. All appears well so far. Plenty sore, but no bleed…..or stroke (heh).
Modern medicine is wonderful, but expensive.