Money and Elections

Political campaigns are often a contest about who has or who can raise more money. On March 21st, I got a NY Times notification with the headline “Illinois governor’s race appears to pit billionaire against multimillionaire.” Interestingly enough, money does not seem to be a determining factor in the outcomes of elections. As of December 31, 2016, Hillary Clinton’s campaign had raised $1.4 billion while Trump’s raised $957.6 million (The Washington Post). If raising more money does not guarantee a candidate a victory, why is it so important to the election?

For a candidate to run in an election, major amounts of money are key. The candidate has to go to rallies, run campaign advertisements, have a website, be active on social media platforms, and more. The number one reason that a candidate drops out of an election is because of dwindling financial funds. In the 2016 election, candidates Scott Walker, Rand Paul, Rick Santorum, and Martin O’Malley were all forced out of the race because of diminishing funds (Huffington Post). This, to me, is a major problem. People who do not come from upper class families and do not have the same prosperous economic backgrounds as candidates like Donald Trump are at major disadvantages. Private finances should not play the major role that they do in presidential elections. America might be missing out on the talented leaders that are unable to run because they cannot compete with the funding of their competitors. This is why campaign finance reform is key.

Additionally, it is interesting to note where the money is coming from and how it can sway voters. Politicians understand how important money is to their campaign and seem to value donations over public image. In a CNN town hall meeting, Rubio was questioned by survivors of the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting about whether he would stop taking donations from the NRA. Rubio said, “I will always accept the help of anyone who agrees with my agenda.” (CNN) Trump has also showed how he values money over opinion when he took vows for gun control immediately after the massacre, but then went back on his word fearing losing the support of the NRA. Money has the power to turn a candidate into a puppet. Therefore, money has an influence on both elections and the candidate, which is not how it should be.

At the end of the day, spending money on elections has been drastically increasing for years and is going to be a part of elections for decades to come. It is an important tool for candidates to have as it undoubtedly helps their chances to run an effective campaign. However, the Presidential election should never turn into a money contest nor should candidates sacrifice their beliefs for donations.

8 Responses to "Money and Elections"

Elizabeth Curland says:

March 27, 2018 at 7:46 pm

James,
I enjoyed your post. Campaign fundraising was brought up a lot this past 2016 election. Many people (even Bernie Sanders himself) criticized Hilary for the large donations she was receiving from Wall Street and pharmaceutical companies. Bernie, on the other hand, got most of his campaign money from small donations. Trump however (being a wealthy businessman) constantly boasted about how much he self-funded his campaign. Trump donated about two million of his own money each month to his campaign. Despite these contributions, Clinton still managed to fundraise more and many thought this would help her ensure a victory.
Jacob Weis says:

March 27, 2018 at 9:05 pm

James,

Outstanding post, you raised an important topic that should be discussed more often. I’d like to comment on your point that money doesn’t win elections. This may have been the case in the 2016 election but, 95% of the time the candidates that outspend their opponents in the past have won the election and Hillary also won the popular vote. Money has always been a powerful factor in advertising your name. The thing is a very tiny group of majority funders give our politicians the money they need to win elections and you can see where this can go wrong. An interesting statistic is that less than 1% of americans contribute 68% of all election funding. This can lead to these big funders using their donations to push the ideas that they have in mind. Money can make some people do just about anything.
Alexander Morris says:

March 27, 2018 at 9:45 pm

James,

Great points and an interesting topic you raised here. I have always thought about the massive amounts of money that presidential campaigns have raised. I like the point you made about the Trump campaign vs. the Hillary campaign and how the two made different amounts of money, yet it did not matter in the end result. I had always thought that the one who raises the most money, usually wins the presidential election. I would add that, I have found out from research that, money and president Trumps ability to sway votes from his social media is a huge reason why he won the presidential election. Users tended to find his social media amusing and in result gained votes from uneducated individuals. A sad notion, but as you said in your post, money does play a huge role in politics and there ability to change minds of those in need of it. Overall, great posting and interesting read.
Virginia Myers says:

March 27, 2018 at 11:27 pm

Dear James,

Thank you for your post. You raise several interesting and valuable points. I agree that we are missing out on thoughtful leaders who have the potential to make positive democratic change in our country because they lack funds to run a campaign. This begs the question of how representative our leaders are of the American public. Similar to the framers, our presidential candidates do tend to come from financial resources (and have always been white males besides Obama’s two terms) because it often means they have a high level of education, which is necessary to effectively run a country. Plus, if the majority wants and should have policy changes enacted that fit their needs, it seems like it would be more productive to have a middle-class, working male or female as president. This way, the majority would likely be more well-represented and more accurately represented in public opinion and policies enacted.
Timothy Miller says:

March 28, 2018 at 11:21 am

James,
What do you think can be done about this? It seems as though during primary elections the less wealthy get weeded out in the party and then when it comes to the presidential election it is anyone’s ballgame. In the 2016 Republican Primary, Trump took 44% of the votes among 12 possible candidates, an astonishing number. I think it makes sense that in primary elections the funding received carries more weight because people pay less attention in the primary than they do in the Presidential. So, if you throw your name out all across the country through multiple platforms and someone comes across it rather than the name of another candidate, you will likely receive that vote solely on name recognition. But, in the Presidential election, the two main candidates have already been made so popular that spending another few million dollars may not reach any more Americans because the election details are already so popular.
Thanks for your post.
Paige Jordan says:

March 28, 2018 at 4:55 pm

James, thank you for your post.
Campaign finance reform would indeed allow more candidates, perhaps from less wealthy backgrounds, to have an opportunity to run for president. However, I think there should be some sort of distinction between campaigns that are funded from the candidate themselves, and funding from fundraising. As Lizzy has mentioned, Trump had contributed about two million dollars from his own pocket to support his campaign, as Hillary’s campaign was supported by more donations and her own fundraising. In this sense, a wealthy businessman prevailed despite having a less expensive campaign as his opponent. Nonetheless, $957.6 million is an extreme expense, so on a larger scale, campaign finance could aid those who are effective leaders and lack resources for funding. It is inevitable that the costs of campaigns will increase in the future, so implementing policies for funding reform would be an interesting way to include more candidates.
Calum Johnson says:

March 28, 2018 at 11:24 pm

Jimmy,

Really enjoyed reading your post. It highlighted great dissatisfactions that many of us feel about the power in this country. It is almost guaranteed that there were much better fits to run our country than the choices we were given in the 2016 election, but as the two candidates had the proper funds, they quickly became our only two viable options. However, even though this is how the system works, it does not seem reasonable to expect change. As we have discussed in class, the media is Americans main source for news and we look for the fastest way to the information we want. This leads us to only see the candidates who have the money to be seen on these various media platforms. They give the commercials, travel and deliver speeches, and the media broadcasts it all. Unless America grew to be a more collective unit to truly weave out the person best suited to represent them in the election, there will not be change. Very few people would be willing to invest the amount of time necessary to seek the best option, and so as we all do, we fall back on who is the most noticeable that has at least some linkage to our beliefs.
Sara Milano says:

April 1, 2018 at 5:42 pm

James,

The first line of your post caught my attention. This is definitely a bold assertion, but one I agree with. It’s interesting that the amount of money a candidate has will not guarantee their victory, but rather confirm their validity. So in the early stages of an election, candidates not receiving enough donations will never get their campaigns off the ground. Later, there seems to be a plateau at which one can have a successful campaign with less money. Also keep in mind that Trump funded much of his own campaign with his fortune.

The fact that less prosperous candidates are often forced to drop out is certainly a threat to our democracy. People from less advantaged backgrounds or who appeal to those from less advantaged backgrounds may have more trouble raising funds. For example, a presidential candidate that promises to lower the corporate tax rate and help big business may only need a handful of large donations, where a candidate appealing to the interests of the marginalized and poor needs thousands of smaller donations from this body to amass the same amount.

The Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission supreme court case is the root of these issues. The Court decided that funding of a political broadcast will have no limit (one donor can exert enormous control and influence over a campaign) and that corporations will be treated like people in terms of campaign finance. This means that powerful corporations can donate a lot of money to PACs or super PACs so more advertising and media material is created that favors the candidate.

Comments are closed.