Money has historically played a pervasive role in American politics, especially in Congressional races. Over time, the large sums of cash raised and spent in political campaigns have contributed to the stifling of Americans’ trust in political institutions. People on both sides of the aisle believe entities that contribute to political campaigns have too much influence over the decisions made by Congress.
The Impact of Citizens United
The Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission opened the door to substantial increases in political contributions at the federal level, including dark money — money from nonprofit organizations with undisclosed donors. The ruling has allowed organizations, including corporations, nonprofits and labor unions, to spend unlimited amounts of money via independent expenditures — spending done by these entities to support the election or defeat of political candidates.
These groups are legally barred from directly contributing to candidates. Therefore, they create pathways to doing so by giving unlimited amounts of independent expenditures to political action committees which are able to directly contribute to candidates. This indirect form of giving to candidates plays a major role in influencing election outcomes.
The Citizens United case opened the door via precedent to allow unrestrained contributions to PACs. This decision, along with other landmark cases, has altered the landscape of campaign finance. As a result of largely unrestricted contributions, large organizations (corporations, labor unions, and nonprofits) have gained an outsized influence in the political arena. In the decade following the Citizens United decision, spending in elections by non-party independent groups totaled over $4 billion, an increase from $750 million that was spent in the twenty years before.
Americans across the political spectrum have become increasingly frustrated with the influence of big money in the political process. Over 70% of both Democrats and Republicans agree that there should be a limit on the amount of money individuals and organizations can contribute to political campaigns.
Campaign Cash: A Golden Ticket to Congress for Candidates in Competitive Races?
While winning an election requires more than just large amounts of money, money plays an important role in candidate viability. Since 2000, over 85% of House races have been won by the candidates who spent the most money.
Research has found that money’s role in predicting an election’s outcome is relatively insignificant for incumbent races. However, its predictive power is stronger among close, competitive races, suggesting that candidates in competitive seats must raise larger sums of money than candidates in non-competitive seats.
Over time, the average amount of money raised by candidates who ultimately won their competitive House race has exceeded the average raised by all House candidates. The difference between the two averages has grown consistently since the Citizens United decision in 2010. In 2010, the difference in the average amount raised was about $600,000, this has sky-rocketed to a difference of over $3.8 million in 2020.
Average amount raised in House races
Prior to the Citizens United ruling, the average amount of money raised in a competitive House race by the winning candidate was approximately $2.1 million; post 2010, however, this amount surged to almost $3 million, an increase of nearly 43%.
The average amount of money raised in a competitive race has increased by almost $1 million
Prior to Citizens United, the amount raised by winning candidates in competitive House races was far from small. After this decision however, campaign contributions have increased substantially – by almost 50%. Citizens United increased the spending of corporations to PACs, thus influencing spending in Congressional races, particularly competitive ones.
The increase in election spending post-Citizens United has largely been driven by non-party affiliated outside groups, inflating the influence of organizational spending on elections while pushing power away from the people. The de facto requirement of political candidates to spend millions on their campaigns has inextricably altered the composition of democracy in the United States.
