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.