Well Informed: Politics and Campaigning

For this week’s topic, I chose to focus on how private money affects campaigning and, ultimately, affects elections as a whole.

The main argument against financing campaigns through private money is that this makes the candidate more obligated to serve their donors. Ideally, candidates for President, or other major offices, should be serving at the will of the people, or at least those who voted for them. Private money can essentially be a way for big businesses to make politicians their puppets.

Additionally, even though there are caps on how much money can be donated directly to political campaigns, the government cannot stop any organization from indirectly spending money in support of a candidate, or in opposition of a candidate. Businesses, organizations, and individuals cannot be barred from spending money to support a candidate because political spending is protected by the First Amendment. This came as a result of the decision in the CitizensUnited vs. Federal Election Commission court case of 2009. These contributions, though indirect, still influence public opinion as much as any official campaign.

As mentioned above, people who support private money donations will usually cite the First Amendment as their main argument. This is a valid argument, and from a legal standpoint they are 100% in the right. I think that the subject should be looked at from an ethical standpoint, though. The First Amendment protects political spending, and some proponents think that any limits infringe on their basic rights. I think that without limitation, big businesses could effectively buy the presidency. In order for the President to be a fair, just leader, he or she needs to have as few strings attached as possible. For that reason, I agree with limits on political spending and would even call for more limits.

Private money plays a huge role in the current presidential election. One of the main reasons a lot of people support Donald Trump is his lack of obligation. Unlike Hillary, they say, Trump is not tied to private money. He repeatedly boasts that he is self-funding his campaign. This appeals to voters because it assures them that his opinions and his intentions are his own, and that he doesn’t have anyone behind the scenes pulling his strings. While it’s true that Trump has contributed a significant amount of money to his campaign, it is not completely self-funded. According to PolitiFact.com, over 30% of his campaign funding came from outside sources. While Trump is much less beholden to private money, it is not entirely true to say he is free of outside money.

Those who oppose Hillary Clinton are quick to point out her ties to private money. According to OpenSecrets.org, 28% of Clinton’s campaign finance came from Super PAC’s and other groups. In contrast, only 1% of Trump’s financing came from Super PAC’s and other groups. 99% of Trump’s campaign finances came from donations, and a significant majority of that money came from Trump himself.

All personal opinions of Trump aside, I can see how this concept has led people to rally behind him. Political spending and campaign financing have caused controversy for decades. Many Americans feel like their voices are being stifled by those who have enough money to make themselves heard. To these individuals, Donald Trump represents change. Since he is not tied to big business or private money, people trust him to represent their needs and to give them a voice.