Despite intensifying partisan divides, Americans broadly agree that money wields too much power in politics [1]. Candidates, parties, and independent interest groups spend increasingly large sums of money to influence election outcomes, with total expenditures on advertisements for the recent presidential cycle totaling around $11 billion [2]. Outside spending by super PACs accounts for $2,728,202,953 of this total, and these funds were mainly spent on ads supporting or smearing candidates [3]. These outside actors greatly influence voters’ information environment with no restriction on how much money they spend and little enforcement regulating their relationships with candidates. Americans are right to question the legitimacy of electoral politics as monetary influence increasingly shapes the electoral process.

The role of money in politics has been a persistent concern throughout American history. Legislation throughout the 20th century targeted the issue, with the Tillman Act of 1907 banning corporations from directly contributing to federal candidates and the Federal Corrupt Practices Act of 1910 requiring political parties to disclose campaign expenditures [4]. However, smoke-filled rooms and dark money continued to dominate the electoral process, as enforcement of legislation was weak, and party elites wielded total control over the presidential nomination process. The 1968 election unmasked the elitism controlling the nomination process, spurring the implementation of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. FECA set harsher limits on campaign expenditures, limiting individual donations to candidates to $1,000 and PAC donations to $5,000 [5]. It also created the Federal Elections Commission to oversee federal elections and monitor donations. Circumventing the restrictions passed under FECA, campaigns and donors alike exploited a soft money loophole in the act, increasingly funding issue-advocacy organizations rather than the campaigns directly. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 closed this loophole, prohibiting candidates and parties from spending soft money on federal elections or for electioneering communications sixty days before a general election [6]. The theme established is apparent: money infiltrates politics, and legislation adapts to limit its influence [7].

In 2010, the Supreme Court undermined the restrictions on soft money imposed by the BCRA in its controversial Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision. The majority held that corporations could not be subject to limitations on their expenditures under the First Amendment’s right to freedom of speech so long as they did not directly coordinate with candidates [8]. The controversial decision led to the rise of super PACs, independent expenditure-only committees that can raise and spend unlimited funds separately from a candidate’s campaign, unlike PACs, which have spending limitations but invest directly into the campaigns. The FEC has a three-pronged test to determine violations in the relationship between a super PAC and a campaign based on payment, content, and conduct [9]. However, the FEC rarely enforces these guidelines due to a lack of significant infrastructure and frequent dismissals; no investigation has ever resulted in penalizing a super PAC [10]. 

Candidates and super PACs alike take advantage of the loopholes created by Citizens United, introducing new dynamics to the election season that warrant closer examination. Elon Musk, the richest person in the world, exposed just how weak these restrictions were last month. The billionaire’s America PAC spent an estimated $200 million supporting President-elect Donald Trump’s election bid, recently securing a position under Trump’s administration as a co-leader of the newly proposed Department of Government Efficiency [11]. On top of these donations, Musk hosted a lottery in swing states just weeks before the presidential election, awarding voters who registered to vote or cast a ballot the chance to win one million dollars if they signed a petition supporting the First and Second Amendments of the Constitution. While Musk’s lottery raises various legal questions, it was recently upheld in a Philadelphia court, making it unlikely for the FEC to conduct further investigations [12]. The blurred line between super PAC staffers and government officials is by no means a new phenomenon or exclusive to one party; President Joe Biden had the finance director of his campaign help lead the pro-Biden super PAC Future Forward USA [13]. However, what is becoming increasingly concerning is the payout for independent fundraising for a candidate, particularly when that payout involves influence over policy. It is highly suspicious that the agencies Musk may oversee are the same ones responsible for setting regulations on his companies, increasing the potential for corruption and profit. 

The logic behind campaign finance reforms is that candidates can get a leg up in their races through monetary support without needing to directly garner a broad base of public support. Garnering broad public support often leads to a large volume of smaller donations, an approach common to grassroots-only efforts to finance campaigns that try to limit the influence of super PACs in elections. The point of elections is for candidates to present their case to the public, and for voters to decide which candidate seems best. When voters receive tailored information from special interests operating on behalf of the candidate, there becomes less of a need for that candidate to make a legitimate case to the electorate. The result is a clash of rhetoric rather than policy, a race to see which organization can present the best emotional argument to persuade voters in one direction or another. Democracy loses its grassroots foundation as voters confront more manipulative tactics, impeding their ability to make well-informed judgments about candidates. 

While the Court is unlikely to overturn its Citizens United decision, the increasing entanglement of super PAC donors and federal candidates warrants more scrutiny. American politics has become a pay-to-play game, with greater benefits and consideration given to those who can afford to pay. The average American voter, earning an annual salary of $59,428, has less influence over policies than the select few who have been lucky enough to hit the millionaires’ jackpot [14]. When the whims of a small class supersede the wants of the broader electorate, the country must reevaluate the state of affairs and adjust accordingly, as done with the passage of FECA and the BCRA. Super PACs may have a constitutional right to exist, but must still play by the rules of the game; as of now, there are too few of these rules to make the stakes fair. Harsher enforcement mechanisms of FEC guidelines or greater restrictions on the overlap between campaigns and government positions would be reasonable first steps toward remedying the issue. However, the most important thing to note is that for many Americans, the electoral process has lost a sense of legitimacy due to the corruption between donors and campaign teams. For democracy to thrive, power must ultimately be consolidated in the people, not in the pockets of corporations or special interests. Money is power, and power corrupts; our job is to ensure it does not corrupt absolutely.