What would politics be without money? That is the question Empire Posts is exploring today. Money is necessary for many components of a successful political campaign, from renting venues to providing security, organizing campaign teams and networking, producing television ads, and running field operations. But what happens when there is no limit? Currently, there are limits on how much a donor can contribute, but there are no limits on how much a campaign can spend. What does this mean for our country? To find out we will conduct a deep dive into the history of political campaign spending.
Late President Jimmy Carter often remarked in his book White House Diary that during his 1976 bid for the Democratic nomination, he frequently slept at the homes of supporters or in automobiles rather than staying at hotels. This low budget strategy proved successful, as Carter went on to win the presidency. In 1976, the Federal Election Commission had a cap on how much a campaign could raise and spend. This limit meant that candidate fundraising totals were practically equal by the end of the campaign. The cap ended in 2004. Below are the campaign spending totals for every presidential election from 1976 to 2004:
| Year | Candidate 1 | Approximate Spending | Candidate 2 | Approximate Spending |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1976 | Jimmy Carter | $21.8 million (FEC.gov) | Gerald Ford | $21.8 million (FEC.gov) |
| 1980 | Ronald Reagan | $29.44 million (FEC.gov) | Jimmy Carter | $29.44 million (FEC.gov) |
| 1984 | Ronald Reagan | $80.8 million (FEC.gov) | Walter Mondale | $80.8 million (FEC.gov) |
| 1988 | George H. W. Bush | $92.2 million (FEC.gov) | Michael Dukakis | $92.2 million (FEC.gov) |
| 1992 | Bill Clinton | $110.48 million (FEC.gov) | George H. W. Bush | $110.48 million (FEC.gov) |
| 1996 | Bill Clinton | $152.7 million (FEC.gov) | Bob Dole | $152.7 million (FEC.gov) |
| 2000 | Al Gore | $147.7 million (FEC.gov) | George W. Bush | $147.7 million (FEC.gov) |
| 2004 | John Kerry | $74.6 million in public funds plus approximately $21 million for legal and accounting (FEC.gov) | George W. Bush | $74.6 million in public funds (FEC.gov) |
In 2008, then-candidate Barack Obama declined public funds, which gave him no limit on how much he could raise from the private sector. When a candidate opts out of public financing, they are no longer subject to a spending cap and can accept unlimited donations from individuals, super PACs, and other private sources. The total amount of money spent in 2008 proves this
John McCain (who accepted public funds) spent $84 million.
Barack Obama (who declined public funds) spent around $730 million.
Campaigns now increasingly relied on super PACs and massive donations, which also increased donor influence.
In the 2012 presidential election, both candidates declined public funding:
| Candidate | Private Funds Raised | Public Funds Taken? |
|---|---|---|
| Barack Obama | $722 million | No |
| Mitt Romney | $449 million | No |
This is when the question of campaign funding and donor influence reaches the surface. Is it reasonable to assume that campaigns might be selling influence or favors in exchange for money?
The short answer is yes, it is completely reasonable to assume this.
The lack of limitations also raises concerns many voters in our country have known about for a long time. Candidate quality. Not everyone in the U.S has access to large amounts of money. A person from a humble background, such as a mayor of a small city or the owner of a small business, would likely struggle to compete with a well-known senator or congressman who has more access to donors and super PACs then they’ll ever need. Large donations never happen by accident, and it is reasonable to suspect that even the most honest candidate could be influenced by the need to keep up with their opponent financially.
Supporters of a return to a campaign spending cap argue that limiting spending would ensure that all candidates finish with approx. the same amount of money, making elections more about policy and how candidates manage their resources rather than on who can raise the most or control the largest network of super PACs.
Empire Posts, as always, leaves the reader with the question, Should campaigns return to a public funding system with spending caps?