In my article, The U.S. Democratic Republic Is Broken, I identified three major impediments preventing our government from representing and serving the interests of its citizens:
The power of money
The power of the political party duopoly
The power of lies
I want to figure out how to reduce the power of these impediments and increase the power of the citizen.
I’m beginning my investigation with the power of money, which I believe may be the biggest problem of all. And it seems I’m not alone in this belief. The role of money in politics is #1 on the public’s list of national concerns, with 72% saying it is a very big problem1.
We are a supposed to be a democratic republic where my vote as a citizen should be powerful. Instead, I observe that money is more powerful than my vote and that those with the most money are the most powerful. That makes us a plutocracy, a country governed by the wealthy. As a result, instead of our government representatives focusing on the concerns of its citizens, it responds to the demands and interests of those who fund their campaigns. The late Senator and campaign finance reformer John McCain wrote:
Questions of honor are raised as much by appearances as by reality in politics, and because they incite public distrust, they need to be addressed no less directly than we would address evidence of expressly illegal corruption…By the time I became a leading advocate of campaign finance reform, I had come to appreciate that the public's suspicions were not always mistaken. Money does buy access in Washington, and access increases influence that often results in benefiting the few at the expense of the many.2
Winning an election and staying in office requires lots of money3. The total cost of the 2024 presidential and congressional election almost $16 billion. In 2022, the average House election winner spent $2.8 million and the average Senate winner spent $26.5 million4. Thus an average member of the House has to raise $1.4 million per year in office ($3,800 per day) and the average Senator $4.4 million per year ($12,100 per day). Imagine the effort required to raise that sort of money. Imagine how much more important big donors must be compared to the average voter.
Money has always had a big influence on U.S. politics. Early efforts to the power of money were directed against patronage, vote buying, extortion, bribery and corruption. In the early 20th century, legislation was enacted to limit the influence of corporations and wealthy individuals. These reforms were generally ineffective and poorly enforced. The political activism of the 60’s and 70’s led Congress to pass sweeping campaign finance laws in 1971 and establish the Federal Election Commission (FEC) in 1974. The campaign spending and contribution limits in these reforms were struck down in by adverse court rulings and attempts at additional reforms were blocked in Congress until the 21st century5.
In 2002, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA)6, commonly known as the McCain-Feingold Act was signed into law7. The key provisions of the BCRA8 are:
A ban on “soft money”, prohibiting national political parties from raising or spending funds not subject to federal limits
Limits on “electioneering communications”, the advertising that unions, corporations, and non-profit organizations can engage in up to 60 days prior to an election
Restrictions on political parties' use of their funds for advertising on behalf of candidates (in the form of "issue ads" or "coordinated expenditures")
Senator Mitch McConnell was the first to challenge the constitutionality of the BCRA in McConnell v. FEC9 arguing that it infringed on First Amendment (freedom of speech) rights. On December 10, 2003 the Supreme Court issued a decision with a 5-4 majority that upheld the soft money and electioneering communications provisions of the act10. With respect to the soft money provision:
The Court found that this provision did not violate the Constitution because the governmental interest in "preventing the actual or apparent corruption of federal candidates and officeholders" was sufficiently important to justify contribution limits. The Court noted that the "record is replete with examples of national party committees' peddling access to federal candidates and officeholders in exchange for large soft-money donations."
But legal challenges to the BCRA continued. In June 2007, the Supreme Court held 5-4 in FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life11 that the act’s limitation on corporate and labor union funding of electioneering communications are unconstitutional, unless an ad could not reasonably be interpreted as anything other than an ad supporting or opposing a candidate. In June 2008, in Davis v. FEC12 the Supreme Court ruled the “Millionaire’s Amendment” of the BCRA to “unconstitutionally burden the First Amendment rights of self-financed candidates.”
But the big granddaddy of all campaign finance legal cases was Citizens United v. FEC13. On January 21, 2010, The Supreme Court, in another 5-4 ruling, overruled an earlier decision (Austin v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce14) that allowed prohibitions on independent expenditures by corporations and the part of McConnell v. FEC banning corporations from making electioneering communications. The ruling opened the floodgates for money to influence elections, allowing unlimited spending by corporations and labor unions. Subsequent court decisions15 authorized the creation of “super-PACs” which are allowed to fundraise unlimited amounts of money from individuals or organizations for the purpose of campaign advertising.
The Brennan Center for Justice has a concise “explainer” for Citizen United, and how it “further tilted political influence toward wealth donors and contributions.” OpenSecrets’ original research16 published a decade after Citizens United (2020) indicates:
Despite fears that elections would be dominated by corporations, the biggest political players are actually wealthy individual donors. The 10 most generous donors and their spouses injected $1.2 billion into federal elections over the last decade. That tiny group of major donors accounted for 7 percent of total election-related giving in 2018, up from less than 1 percent a decade prior.
The balance of political power shifted from political parties to outside groups that can spend unlimited sums to bolster their preferred candidates. Election-related spending from non-party independent groups ballooned to $4.5 billion over the decade. It totaled just $750 million over the two decades prior.
Even political candidates found themselves dwarfed by independent groups that in many cases morphed into effective arms of political campaigns and parties. Outside spending surpassed candidate spending in 126 races since the ruling. That happened just 15 times in the five election cycles prior.
Despite promises from the court that monied interests would be required to reveal their political giving, the ruling gave new powers to dark money organizations. Groups that don't disclose their donors flooded elections with $963 million in outside spending, compared to a paltry $129 million over the previous decade.
Major corporations didn't take full advantage of their new political powers. Corporations accounted for no more than one-tenth of independent groups' fundraising in each election cycle since the ruling. But secretly funded nonprofits and trade associations that influence elections take money from major companies in amounts that are mostly unknown.
The ruling didn't reverse the ban on foreign money in elections, but it provided opportunities for foreign actors to secretly funnel money to elections through nonprofits and shell companies.
In an expert brief17, the Brennan Center explains how Citizens United defined the 2024 election. A handful of megadonors helped Trump narrow the fundraising gap with Harris, and one of them essentially helped run his campaign. The largest outside group supporting the Harris campaign was a super-PAC funded by dark money groups. Dark money also played a pivotal role in many Senate and House races. Candidates and parties turned to joint fundraising committees18 to foot their big bills in new ways, exploiting a FEC loophole allowing these fundraising entities to themselves run campaign ads. Republicans exploited it. Democrats “responded by saying they would use the same tactics for ads going forward.”
It’s clear that Citizen United has dramatically increased the power of money, wealthy individuals and big corporations. Our democracy is severely compromised because money is for all practical purposes determining who we can choose to represent us and is defining what the important issues are. Our elected representatives have to chase money and satisfy donors instead of working on our behalf and governing the country.
If we want government to work in the interest of its citizens, if we want a government of the people, for the people, we need to limit the power of money in politics.
I’ll present some ideas on how to do that in Part 2.
Pew Research Center, “Americans Continue to View Several Economic Issues as Top National Problems”, February 20, 2025
McCain, John, and Mark Salter. Worth the Fighting For: A Memoir 1st trade ed., Random House, 2002.
OpenSecrets is a fantastic website for tracking money in U.S. politics. You can research politicians, elections, lobbying and industry groups and get the latest news on money’s influence on U.S. elections and policy. Well worth visiting by a vigilant citizen. I can get lost there!
Election Trends: https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/election-trends
Campaign finance reform in the U.S., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_reform_in_the_United_States
The bill passed the House with a 240-189 and the Senate with a 60-40 vote. The preponderance of “nay” votes in both houses (176 House, 38 Senate) were cast by Republicans.
Bipartisan Campaign Act: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipartisan_Campaign_Reform_Act
McConell v. FEC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McConnell_v._FEC
Supreme Court decision, McConell v. FEC: https://www.fec.gov/legal-resources/court-cases/mcconnell-v-fec/
Supreme Court decision, Wisconsin Right to Live v. FEC: https://www.fec.gov/legal-resources/court-cases/wisconsin-right-to-life-inc-v-fec/
Supreme Court decision, Davis v. FEC, https://www.fec.gov/legal-resources/court-cases/davis-v-fec/
Citizens United v. FEC, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC, Supreme Court decision, https://www.fec.gov/legal-resources/court-cases/citizens-united-v-fec/
In the Austin case the Court identified a compelling governmental interest in limiting political speech by corporations by preventing "the corrosive and distorting effects of immense aggregations of wealth that are accumulated with the help of the corporate form and that have little or no correlation to the public’s support for the corporation’s political ideas."
More money, less transparency: A decade under Citizens United, https://www.opensecrets.org/news/reports/a-decade-under-citizens-united
Pino, Marina and Julia Fishman, Fifteen Years Later, Citizens United, Defined the 2024 Election, https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/fifteen-years-later-citizens-united-defined-2024-election, 2025
Joint fundraising committees are PACs formed by multiple candidates, parties, and PACs to raise money together.