The Irrelevant Truth About Campaign Finance

There is an overarching sentiment within the American public that campaign finance corrupts the representativeness of the government and the democratic nature of the electoral process. There is a common stigma that money can be equated to voice in the American political system. This is grounded in the belief that if candidates accept donations from individuals, businesses, party PACs, etc., they will be held to uphold those donors’ desires and goals during their term. Although this belief may seem logical, under the assumption that these donations are a form of bribery in relation to future preferred policy and legislation, I do not believe this is actually the case.

There is a fundamental issue imbedded in the idea that candidates will be held to the desires of donors in their future term. The reality is that donors contribute funds to candidates who already support their needs—an environmental agency would contribute to a environmentally friendly candidate, a large corporation will donate to a candidate who supports tax cuts for businesses, and so on. This becomes clear when analyzing any candidate’s donor base.

For example, in the 2014 Texas gubernatorial election, both candidates’ donor bases follow unsurprising trends. Republican candidate Greg Abbott’s biggest donations are from individuals (both in and out of state), frequently business and oil tycoons, who are regular GOP donors (Root). These donors are already ideologically connected to Abbott. They do not donate in the hope of influencing Abbott to push their preferred policies and legislation; they donate knowing that he will. Similarly, his democratic opponent Wendy Davis, gains the majority of her campaign funds from lawyers and lobbyists, as well as ideological and single-issue institutions (Root). Many of these lawyers practice environmental law, and know that Davis is a candidate that backs ecologically friendly policies, including anti-fracking legislation (Root). Additionally, Davis made a name for herself in 2013 by becoming the national poster-child for the pro-choice cause through her 11-hour filibuster which (unsuccessfully) attempted to prevent more stringent abortion regulations in Texas. Thus, it is not the least bit surprising that Davis’ top donors are single-issue institutions (in which the “single issue” in question is abortion). Most notably, Annie’s List, a Texan nonprofit which works to promote pro-choice women running for positions of power in Texas, donated $423,840 to Davis’s campaign, making the group the second largest single donor (Project Vote Smart).

So the truth is that donations probably don’t hold all too much sway in future policy decisions. Donors give to certain candidates because they KNOW these particular contenders will support the legislation they favor. These contributions are not hopeful donations or a threatening bribes. They want to support candidates who are ideologically connected their causes. However, in this case, the reality is far less important than the perception is.

As previously stated, there is a prevalent conception among the American people that money buys voice and the enormous donations that candidates receive corrupts the representative nature and fairness of the American democracy. A recent Rassmussen poll finds that 53 percent of voters believe “neither party…is the party of the American people.” This sentiment is substantially grounded in the perception that those who donate in turn have a greater say. Regardless of the reality that donations are not policy-nudges or bribes, the perception causes the American people to choose not to participate. This in turn affects voting practices and consequently the representativeness of the American government. That is how parties lose the American people.

 Even if only briefly analyzed, it becomes clear that campaign finance is not an indication of corruption or bribery, but of a certain institution’s faith and trust in a candidate and a hope that that candidate will win. But the general public does not even “briefly analyze” campaign finance trends. They see the enormous quantity of money that is raised and used in campaigns and begin to have feelings of otherness. How can their single vote have a say in a 40 billion dollar election? The issue lies not in where the money comes from but in how much money there is. It’s not about blackmail or bribery; it is about the American people feeling separate from a flashy, expensive campaign. The candidates become characters of a sitcom that is their political system—celebrities, not representatives.

"Texas Governor's Race: Analyzing the Money, by Jay Root and Becca Aaronson." The Texas Tribune. Accessed October 3, 2014.

"The Voter's Self Defense System." Project Vote Smart. Accessed October 3, 2014.

"53% Think Neither Political Party Represents the American People - Rasmussen Reports™." 53% Think Neither Political Party Represents the American People - Rasmussen Reports™. Accessed October 3, 2014.