Money & Congressional Elections
Chapter eleven discusses money and congressional elections, as many candidates have been spending extreme amounts of money on their campaigns. House members serve two-year terms, and, as a result, spend much more time focusing on their reelection than the Senate. The idea that members of Congress are constantly running for reelection and spend more of their efforts on campaigning rather than governing is a concept known as permanent campaign. However, Senators have six years between elections and thus have more of a break from campaigning. Perhaps this difference in time contributes to the fact that incumbent senators spend a much greater amount of money defending their seat than average House incumbents. In 2014, this difference was approximately $9.5 million dollars. While of course some of this money is from outside groups such as PACs associated with congressional party leaders, self-financed campaigns seem to be a dominating contribution. For instance, the Koch brothers announced they would spend $20 million in effort to sell the Republican tax plan to voters in the 2018 midterm elections, which is only part of their planned $400 million total investment.
After the outbreak of public mistrust in government that occurred after the famous Watergate scandal, a number of reforms were enacted. Of these reforms, limits were imposed on both political fundraising and spending in elections, as well as the creation of the Federal Election Commission for enforcement. However, these reforms were shortly undermined by the Supreme Court rule in Buckley v. Valeo. The Valeo decision stated that mandating spending limits in elections represented an unconstitutional limit on free speech. While there have been subsequent tepid campaign finance reforms in Congress, these fundraising limits have actually created a perverse effect. As stated by Bloomberg News, “dark money” has represented nearly two-thirds of political-ad spending in the 2016 campaign.
Because House and Senate candidate campaigns do not receive public funding, there is no ceiling on political spending. As revealed by a 60 Minutes investigation in 2016, the National Republican Congressional Committee essentially sets up call centers near the US Capitol, where members were mandated to dial for donations for up to four hours every day. According to the Washington post, an average House candidate spends $500,000 on a race, whereas a prospective Senator would spend nearly $1.5 million.
The American political system has been so greatly influenced by money that it seems at times the true nature of politics and policy is lost. Because of the large amounts of unprecedented spending in the midterm elections, an atmosphere is created where fundraising abilities are ranked over their actual ideas for policy. The notion that pumping vast amounts of money into a campaign for House and Senate positions can in turn influence the outcome seems to undermine principles at the foundation of our country. In theory, citizens should have a fair opportunity to participate in politics, and it is somewhat of a shame that able candidates can become crowded out by wealthier opponents.