The Edmond Sun


April 23, 2014

Loosening constraints on campaign donations and spending doesn’t destroy democracy

LOS ANGELES — Campaign finance reformers are worried about the future. They contend that two Supreme Court rulings — the McCutcheon decision in March and the 2010 Citizens United decision — will magnify inequality in U.S. politics.

In both cases, the court majority relaxed constraints on how money can be spent on or donated to political campaigns. By allowing more private money to flow to campaigns, the critics maintain, the court has allowed the rich an unfair advantage in shaping political outcomes and made “one dollar, one vote” (in one formulation) the measure of our corrupted democracy.

This argument misses the mark for at least four reasons.

First, the money spent on federal campaigns is not excessive; quite the contrary. Second, elections — and politics in general — are inherently unequal for many reasons other than money. Third, incumbency is by far the greatest source of this inequality, and the limits on contributions — and thus on most candidates’ spending — that reformers want to retain would only worsen it. Finally, the claim that generous donors and big independent spenders in effect buy federal elections and policies is contradicted by the empirical evidence.

Politics is inevitably expensive in a vast, diverse, media-centered country like ours. Town meetings, soapboxes and water-cooler conversations are cheap and important, but most campaigning is done through televised debates, advertising, direct mail and other costly media. Money is not exactly speech, but it is essential to communicating political ideas effectively, and even negative advertising conveys useful information to voters.

Indeed, we should probably spend more on elections than we do. In the 2012 election, parties, candidates and political committees not directly affiliated with them spent $7 billion. That may seem like a lot of money, but consider it in context. In 2011, Americans spent an estimated $10.4 billion — almost 50 percent more — on cosmetic surgery! In a 2003 study, Harvard political scientist Stephen Ansolabehere and his colleagues found that campaign spending as a share of GDP had not risen appreciably in more than a century.

Equal opportunity in politics is impossible to define or control. Some candidates have less money but more of other assets: organizational skills, name recognition, dynastic ties, contacts with opinion leaders, charisma, telegenic appeal, convincing arguments, personal wealth, key endorsements, compelling life stories and stronger party support. Because of these non-monetary factors, higher-spending candidates often lose. There is simply no way to equalize such factors, nor should we try.

The most important electoral advantage, by far, is incumbency, which profoundly weakens the political competition that a robust democracy requires. Unlike the other advantages, we could reduce this one in several ways, such as with free or low-cost TV time or providing the equivalent of incumbents’ franking privilege.

Instead, the very restrictions on campaign spending that reformers have been enacting since the 1970s almost always increase the already immense advantages of incumbents: seniority, name recognition, party support, free mailings to constituents, power over legislation and redistricting, and the easier access to contributions that these advantages bring.

Perhaps most important, incumbents write the campaign finance laws, including public funding schemes. Unsurprisingly, when these laws are enacted by legislatures rather than voter initiative, they almost always limit the very spending that would help challengers reduce these vast incumbent advantages.

Finally, contributions actually affect policy decisions less than reformers think. Studies show that most contributions are well below the legal ceilings and go to candidates whose well-established views already agree with the donors’ views. Such contributions serve to fortify more than to persuade, to improve donor access rather than to buy votes.

Political scientists also find little relationship between money and votes once they control for other factors relevant to constituents, especially their underlying interests. And campaign spending seems to have only a minuscule effect on outcomes. Political scientists studying congressional elections over a 20-year period found that an extra $175,000 in spending would increase a candidate’s vote tally by only a third of a percentage point, partly because opponents respond by increasing their spending. The 2012 presidential election confirmed this arm’s race analogy.

Loose, misleading talk about “the appearance of corruption” and “buying” elections probably damages public confidence in our politics more than the campaign spending permitted by the Supreme Court’s recent decisions. The point isn’t that our campaign finance system is perfect or that reform is futile — far from it — but that limits on spending aggravate inequalities by further entrenching incumbent advantages over challengers.

Better alternatives are available. As noted above, candidates with significant support should get free or low-cost TV time. Legal reforms can encourage non-wealthy citizens to give to campaigns. Greater disclosure of who gives what to whom can enable voters to draw their own conclusions about the influence of candidates’ donors. Most important, contribution limits can be designed to channel more of donors’ money through the parties, which take a more moderate, long-term view of candidate selection, campaigning and policy.

PETER H. SCHUCK, a professor at Yale Law School, is now visiting at UC Berkeley’s law and public policy schools. His new book is “Why Government Fails So Often, and How It Can Do Better.” He wrote this for the Los Angeles Times.


Text Only
  • Is English getting dissed?

    Is the English language being massacred by the young, the linguistically untidy and anyone who uses the Internet? Absolutely.
    Is that anything new? Hardly.
    Many words and expressions in common parlance today would have raised the hackles of language scolds in the not-so-distant past. For evidence, let’s look at some examples from recent newspaper articles.

    July 31, 2014

  • 'Too big to fail' equals 'too eager to borrow'

    Four years ago this month, President Barack Obama signed the Dodd-Frank Act into law, promising that the 848-page financial law would “put a stop to taxpayer bailouts once and for all,” he said. But recently, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren told a Detroit crowd that “the biggest banks are even bigger than they were when they got too big to fail in 2008.”
    Who’s right?

    July 30, 2014

  • Sheltons travel for better life for family

    Some time around 1865 a mixed-race African American couple, William and Mary Shelton, made their way from Mississippi to east Texas. Nothing is known for certain of their origins in he Magnolia state, or the circumstances under which they began their new lives in Texas.

    July 29, 2014

  • Film critic Turan produces book

    Kenneth Turan, who is the film critic for National Public Radio’s “Morning Edition,” has written a book “Not to be Missed, Fifty-Four Favorites from a Life Time of Film.” His list of movies span the gamut from the beginnings of filmmaking through the present day.
    There are some surprising omissions on his list. While he includes two films, “A Touch of Evil” and Chimes at Midnight” made by Orson Welles, and one, “The Third Man,” that Welles starred in but did not direct. He did not however, include “Citizen Kane,” that was the first movie Welles made, that is  often cited by both film critics and historians as a favorite film.

    July 28, 2014

  • Logan County’s disputed zone

    Watchers of “Star Trek” may recall the episode from the original series entitled, “Day of the Dove.” In this episode, Captain Kirk and his crew are forced by a series of circumstances into a confrontation with the Klingons. The conflict eventually resolves after Kirk realizes that the circumstances have been intentionally designed by an alien force which feeds off negative emotions, especially fear and anger. Kirk and his crew communicate this fact to the Klingons and the conflict subsides. No longer feeding upon confrontation, the alien force is weakened and successfully driven away.

    July 28, 2014

  • Russell leads in Sun poll

    Polling results of an unscientific poll at show that Steve Russell, GOP candidate for the 5th District congressional seat, is in the lead with 57 percent of the vote ahead of the Aug. 26 runoff election. Thirty readers participated in the online poll.

    July 28, 2014

  • Healthier and Wealthier? Not in Oklahoma

    Increased copays, decreased coverage, diminished health care access, reduced provider budgets and increased frustration are all the outcomes of the Legislature’s 2014 health care funding decisions. Unlike some years in the past when a languishing state economy forced legislators into making cuts, the undesirable outcomes this year could easily have been avoided.

    July 26, 2014

  • Medicaid reform a necessity

    Historically, education spending by the state of Oklahoma has been the largest budget item. This is no longer the case. In recent years, the state of Oklahoma spends more on Medicaid (operated by the Oklahoma Health Care Authority) than common education and higher education combined, according to the state’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report.

    July 25, 2014

  • Remembering lessons from 1974

    This week marks the 40th anniversary of an important milestone in America’s constitutional history. On July 24, 1974, the Supreme Court voted 8-0 to order the Nixon White House to turn over audiotapes that would prove the president and his close aides were guilty of criminal violations. This ruling established with crystal clarity that the executive branch could not hide behind the shield of executive privilege to protect itself from the consequences of illegal behavior. It was a triumph for the continued vitality of our constitutional form of government.

    July 25, 2014

  • RedBlueAmerica: Is parenting being criminalized in America?

    Debra Harrell was arrested recently after the McDonald’s employee let her daughter spend the day playing in a nearby park while she worked her shift. The South Carolina woman says her daughter had a cell phone in case of danger, and critics say that children once were given the independence to spend a few unsupervised hours in a park.
    Is it a crime to parent “free-range” kids? Does Harrell deserve her problems? Joel Mathis and Ben Boychuk, the RedBlueAmerica columnists, debate the issue.

    July 24, 2014


The runoff race for the 5th District congressional seat is set for Aug. 26. If the voting were today, which candidate would you support?

Al McAffrey
Tom Guild
     View Results