Canton Ohio’s favorite: The O’Jays (1973) – For the Love of Money
Cash
Let’s get down to cash. Estimates are that the combined Presidential candidates in the 2024 election will spend over $10 Billion (Marketplace). For perspective, it was record setting in 2008 when the combined Obama and McCain campaigns went over $1 Billion (Politico). Adjusted for inflation, that’s about $1.5 Billion in 2024.
That’s a 666% increase in costs, not caused by inflation. So what happened?
From 1976 to 2012, the US Government matched private donations up to $250 in primary campaigns, and paid a set amount for the general election campaigns to each major party candidate. The deal was: take the Federal money, and don’t raise any money privately. That kept both major party candidates on an even playing field, and not worried about fundraising. However, the law allowed for an exception. A candidate could refuse Federal money and raise as much as they wanted on their own, as long individual contributions didn’t exceed the limit.
Citizen’s United
With the development of the internet, individual fundraising became much more effective, so much so, that the 2008 Obama campaign raised more on their own than the Federal government could offer. They turned the Federal money down. That was the first “nail in the coffin” in the Federal Presidential Election funding program.
But the coffin lid was nail-gunned shut in 2010, with a Supreme Court ruling called “Citizen’s United”. In that case, the 5-4 Court ruled that contributing money to campaigns was a “free speech” activity and loosened restrictions. All of a sudden, money from individuals could flow to tax exempt groups called “Super-PACs” (political action committees) in unlimited amounts. Those PAC’s could then donate to individual campaigns, and they could also spend the money themselves in “support” of one candidate or the other. Campaigns raised billions more than the Federal government fund offered, and in 2014, the fund was discontinued.
Influence
It’s all about money and influence. The largest individual donation in the past year (23-24) was from Tim Mellon (of the Mellon Bank fortune). He contributed $90,000,000 to Republican causes. Ken Griffin (Citadel LLC, hedge-fund) contributed $74,000,000 to Republicans. Richard Uihlien (Uline Inc) gave $71,000,000 to Republicans. In fact, this election year (so far), the top ten contributors have already given Republicans $376,159,709. Democrats got $98,863,042 out of the rest of the ten.
So what is this “power”, the “freedom of speech” represented by money? Tim Mellon, Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, and Miriam Adelson on the Republican side have a lot of “say”, because they donate so much money. Look at Trump’s strict adherence to Netanyahu’s actions in Gaza, in part, because of the Adelson’s support of both Trump and Israel (AP). In the same way, Mike Bloomberg, Tom Styer, George Soros, Dustin Moskovitz (Facebook) have “sway” in the Democratic Party. How much “sway”? Jeffrey Katzenberg was the public face of “donors” warning Biden to drop out (YouTube). No money, no campaign for President; Biden left the election.
Joy and Cash
Sure, it’s nice that the Harris-Walz campaign is bringing “joy” back to politics again. The crowds at the rallies are testament to the new energy on the Democratic side. But just as importantly, the Harris campaign raised over $350,000,000 in July (and at least another $80,000,000 this month so far). That doesn’t include the close the $300,000,000 already in the Biden-Harris coffers transferred over to the new standard bearer.
Campaign finance reforms were a result of the 1972 Nixon campaign. Sure there was the Watergate break-in, when some CIA-connected operatives broke into the Democratic Headquarters to bug the Chairman’s phone, and got caught. But the real shock of the Watergate scandal with the hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash floating around the CREEP (Nixon’s Committee to Re-Elect the President) office, so much money that it didn’t seem like a big deal to pay some old CIA guys to break-in. By 1976, there were clear election donation limitations, and $200 million for each of the Carter and Ford campaigns.
Reform Fails
The reformers (Republican and Democrat under the McCain-Feingold Act of 2002) were moving money out of the campaign equation. But the internet, and the Supreme Court, put money right back in the center of American politics, where we are now.
It’s not just about television advertising, though that’s anticipated to be $7.06 Billion (all campaign advertising, not just Presidential) in 2024. Digital advertising may reach $3.46 Billion, including “social network” spending (EMarketer). And all of that doesn’t include more traditional expenditures: staffing, travel, rallies, mailings, signs, stickers, and other so-called “street money”. Campaigns look for every way to contact potential voters (right now I get sixty or more fund raising emails a day, and dozens of texts, all asking for money).
My old 1976 Carter/Mondale boss made it clear: not one sign, or pamphlet, or bumper sticker could be left in the office by election day. It all had to go out, to try to make a difference and change a vote. Even with as much money as they have now, that campaign “rule” still exists. Like the old Nixon CREEP days, with money was falling out of closets, campaigns have more cash than they can spend. But they’re going to try.
