essay on money in politics

FiveThirtyEight

Sep. 10, 2018 , at 5:56 AM

How Money Affects Elections

By Maggie Koerth

Filed under 2018 Election

To quote the great political philosopher Cyndi Lauper, “Money changes everything.” 1 And nowhere is that proverb more taken to heart than in a federal election, where billions of dollars are raised and spent on the understanding that money is a crucial determinant of whether or not a candidate will win.

This year, the money has been coming in and out of political campaigns at a particularly furious pace. Collectively, U.S. House candidates raised more money by Aug. 27 than House candidates raised during the entire 2014 midterm election cycle, and Senate candidates weren’t far behind. Ad volumes are up 86 percent compared to that previous midterm. Dark money — flowing to political action committees from undisclosed donors — is up 26 percent.

Presumably, all that money is going to buy somebody an election. In reality, though, Lauper isn’t quite right. Political scientists say there’s not a simple one-to-one causality between fundraising and electoral success. Turns out, this market is woefully inefficient. If money is buying elections a lot of candidates are still wildly overpaying for races they were going to win anyway. And all of this has implications for what you (and those big dark money donors) should be doing with your political contributions.

The candidate who spends the most money usually wins

How strong is the association between campaign spending and political success? For House seats, more than 90 percent of candidates who spend the most win. From 2000 through 2016, there was only one election cycle where that wasn’t true: 2010. “In that election, 86 percent of the top spenders won,” said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan research group that tracks campaign fundraising and spending.

Looked at this way, a campaign is like a dinner party, and fundraising is the plates and silverware. You may work hard. You may get a lot of other things right. But if everyone is eating four-star lasagna off the table with their hands, the party will still be a failure and remembered more for what it didn’t have than what it did.

Overall, advertising ends up being the major expense for campaigns, said Travis Ridout, professor of government and public policy at Washington State University. In 2012 and 2014, the average Senate campaign spent 43 percent of its budget on ads, he told me, and the average House campaign spent 33 percent. Presidential races spend an even bigger chunk of their budgets on advertising. In 2012, for instance, ads made up more than 70 percent of President Obama’s campaign expenses and 55 percent of Mitt Romney’s.

But that doesn’t mean spending caused the win

Money is certainly strongly associated with political success. But, “I think where you have to change your thinking is that money causes winning,” said Richard Lau, professor of political science at Rutgers. “I think it’s more that winning attracts money.”

That’s not to say money is irrelevant to winning, said Adam Bonica, a professor of political science at Stanford who also manages the Database on Ideology, Money in Politics, and Elections . But decades of research suggest that money probably isn’t the deciding factor in who wins a general election, and especially not for incumbents. Most of the research on this was done in the last century, Bonica told me, and it generally found that spending didn’t affect wins for incumbents and that the impact for challengers was unclear . Even the studies that showed spending having the biggest effect, like one that found a more than 6 percent increase in vote share for incumbents, didn’t demonstrate that money causes wins. In fact, Bonica said, those gains from spending likely translate to less of an advantage today, in a time period where voters are more stridently partisan . There are probably fewer and fewer people who are going to vote a split ticket because they liked your ad.

Instead, he and Lau agreed, the strong raw association between raising the most cash and winning probably has more to do with big donors who can tell (based on polls or knowledge of the district or just gut-feeling woo-woo magic) that one candidate is more likely to win — and then they give that person all their money.

Advertising — even negative advertising — isn’t very effective

This is a big reason why money doesn’t buy political success. Turns out, advertising, the main thing campaigns spend their money on, doesn’t work all that well.

This is a really tough thing to study, Ridout said, and it’s only getting harder as media becomes more fragmented and it’s less clear who saw what ad how many times and in what context. But it’s also something people have been studying for a long time. Driven by fears that attack ads might undermine democracy by reducing voter turnout, researchers have been looking at the impacts of negative advertising since the 1990s. And, beginning around the mid-2000s, they began making serious progress on understanding how ads actually affect whether people vote and who they vote for. The picture that’s emerged is … well … let’s just say it’s probably rather disappointing to the campaigns that spend a great deal of time and effort raising all that money to begin with .

Take, for example, the study that is probably the nation’s only truly real-world political advertising field experiment . During Rick Perry’s 2006 re-election campaign for Texas governor, a team of researchers convinced Perry’s campaign to run ads in randomly assigned markets and then tracked the effect of those ads over time using surveys. Advertising did produce a pro-Perry response in the markets that received the treatment. But that bump fizzled fast. Within a week after ads stopped running, it was like no one had ever seen them.

What’s more, Ridout said, ads probably matter least in the races where campaigns spend the most on them — like presidential elections. Partly, that’s because the bigger the election, the more we already know about the people running. It’s not like anyone went into the 2016 presidential race confused about who Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton were, for example. Also, partisan politics are just really powerful: In 2016, about 7 in 10 voters identified as either a Democrat or Republican, according to exit polls ; 89 percent of Democrats voted for Clinton and 90 percent of Republicans voted for Trump. Even in congressional races, most voters aren’t persuadable. Instead, when there’s a shift from one party to another, it’s usually more about national waves than what is happening in individual districts, Bonica said. So the ad run by your would-be congressperson matters less than the overall, national sense that this year is really going to swing for one party or another.

There are times when money does matter, though

“Money matters a great deal in elections,” Bonica said. It’s just that, he believes, when scientists go looking for its impacts, they tend to look in the wrong places. If you focus on general elections, he said, your view is going to be obscured by the fact that 80 to 90 percent of congressional races have outcomes that are effectively predetermined by the district’s partisan makeup — and the people that win those elections are still given (and then must spend) ridiculous sums of money because, again, big donors like to curry favor with candidates they know are a sure thing.

In the 2016 campaign for Wisconsin’s 1st Congressional District, for example, House Speaker Paul Ryan plunked down $13 million winning a race against a guy who spent $16,000. Across the country that same year, 129 members of Congress were elected in races where they spent hundreds of thousands, even millions, of dollars — and their opponents reported no spending at all . It wasn’t the cash that won the election. Instead, challengers likely chose to not invest much money because they already knew they would lose.

But in 2017, Bonica published a study that found, unlike in the general election, early fundraising strongly predicted who would win primary races. That matches up with other research suggesting that advertising can have a serious effect on how people vote if the candidate buying the ads is not already well-known and if the election at hand is less predetermined along partisan lines.

Basically, said Darrell West, vice president and director of governance studies at the Brookings Institution, advertising is useful for making voters aware that a candidate or an issue exists at all. Once you’ve established that you’re real and that enough people are paying attention to you to give you a decent chunk of money, you reach a point of diminishing returns (i.e., Paul Ryan did not have to spend $13 million to earn his seat). But a congressperson running in a close race, with no incumbent — or someone running for small-potatoes local offices that voters often just skip on the ballot — is probably getting a lot more bang for their buck.

Another example of where money might matter: Determining who is capable of running for elected office to begin with. Ongoing research from Alexander Fouirnaies, professor of public policy at the University of Chicago, suggests that, as it becomes normal for campaigns to spend higher and higher amounts, fewer people run and more of those who do are independently wealthy . In other words, the arms race of unnecessary campaign spending could help to enshrine power among the well-known and privileged.

“That may be the biggest effect of money in politics,” West wrote to me in an email.

So you probably missed the window to have your donation really affect this election

Look, donating to congressional and presidential campaigns is not, across the board, a great investment. Fortune magazine told rich people as much back in 2014 , pointing to big donors like billionaire Tom Steyer — who poured $50 million into TV ads for various candidates and got less than half of them elected. If big donors wanted their dollars to actually affect the outcome of elections, Forbes wrote, they should focus spending on issue referendums, small races and long-term strategies (making sure state-level redistricting ensures highly predictable partisan elections at the national level, say).

And researchers have similar advice for “petite” donors. The best time to donate is early on in the primary, Bonica said, when out-of-the-gate boosts in fundraising can play a big, causal role in deciding who makes it to the general election. At this point in the cycle, not only are most general election races in the hands of partisan district power, but ads start to be less and less effective. If the Rick Perry study made you think it’s best to advertise the week before an election — well, at that point, pretty much everybody has made up their minds, and studies show ads don’t have much effect at all.

Lauper’s recording was a cover of a song written by Tom Gray in 1979 and recorded by his band, “The Brains.” The aphorism dates to at least the 1870s and a book by American author Caroline Cheesebro’ called “The Foe in the Household.”

Maggie Koerth was a senior reporter for FiveThirtyEight. @maggiekb1

Filed under

2020 Election (1214 posts) Congress (568) 2018 Election (360) 2018 House Elections (146) Political Science (131) 2018 Senate Elections (129) 2018 Governors Elections (68) Campaign Finance (27)

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience.

Suggested Results

Antes de cambiar....

Esta página no está disponible en español

¿Le gustaría continuar en la página de inicio de Brennan Center en español?

al Brennan Center en inglés

al Brennan Center en español

Informed citizens are our democracy’s best defense.

We respect your privacy .

• Reform Money in Politics

Influence of Big Money

A handful of wealthy donors dominate electoral giving and spending in the United States. We need limits on campaign finance, transparency, and effective enforcement of these rules — along with public financing.

Why It Matters

Today, thanks Supreme Court decisions like  Citizens United , big money dominates U.S. political campaigns to a degree not seen in decades. Super PACs allow billionaires to pour unlimited amounts into campaigns, drowning out the voices of ordinary Americans. Dark money groups mask the identities of their donors, preventing voters from knowing who’s trying to influence them. And races for a congressional seat regularly attract tens of millions in spending. It’s no wonder that most people believe the super-wealthy have much more influence than the rest of us. 

Though  Citizens United  opened the floodgates to unlimited independent spending, the Supreme Court continues to uphold limits on direct contributions. Brennan Center for Justice advocates for tighter limits on contributions candidates can directly receive.

We also call for stricter rules to ensure unlimited political spending by non-candidates really is independent of candidates. And we advocate for greater transparency of who pays for political ads, because voters deserve to know. To meet these standards, elections at every level require fair and effective enforcement, beginning with a better-functioning Federal Election Commission. 

Fully Disclose All Political Spending

Congress should pass the DISCLOSE Act, and states should require all groups engaged in political spending in state races to disclose their donors.

Close Fundraising Loopholes for Candidates and Officeholders

Congress and the states should curb coordinated activity between candidates and super PACs. They should also stop the flow of dark money to nonprofit groups that are controlled by and promote elected officials.

Fix the Federal Election Commission 

Congress should overhaul our nation’s dysfunctional campaign finance regulator so that it can effectively enforce the law.

Read more in our Democracy solutions report.

Super PACs & Coordination

There is a yawning gap in the rules that govern money in politics and government ethics. We must prevent special interests from using super PACs and officeholder-controlled nonprofits to bypass campaign finance limits and improperly influence candidates and elected officials.

Citizens United unleashed unlimited spending in our elections, and groups can now spend hundreds of millions without disclosing their sources of funding. We advocate for greater transparency in election spending.

Enforcement & the FEC

The gridlocked Federal Election Commission has failed to enforce campaign finance law. The Brennan Center has proposed reforms to overhaul and update the agency.

Work & Resources

Work & resources.

The Brennan Center's Money in Politics Toolkit

A resource for state and local lawmakers and advocates to develop political financing reforms in six key areas.

Brennan Center for Justice

Expert brief, analysis: new york’s big donor problem & why small donor public financing is an effective solution for constituents and candidates, research report, elected officials, secret cash, five to four, policy solution, the case for small donor public financing in new york, small donor tax credits: a new model, fixing the fec: an agenda for reform, getting foreign funds out of america's elections, secret spending in the states, trump’s use of campaign funds to pay legal bills, related analysis & opinion.

Thanks to loopholes and lax enforcement, former president Trump is using campaign funds to pay almost all of his legal bills.

Small Donors to Campaigns Are Not the Problem

Megadonors exert far more control over U.S. politics, and it’s past time to rein them in.

Small Donor Public Financing Can Help More Women Get Elected

Checkbook candidacies, rfk jr.’s vp pick and the dangers of self-funded campaigns, our experts.

Daniel I. Weiner

Ian Vandewalker

Lawrence Norden

Joanna Zdanys

Michael Waldman

Alicia Bannon

Douglas Keith

Ciara Torres-Spelliscy

Informed citizens are democracy’s best defense.

• Action Campaigns
• National Summits
• Speakers Bureau
• Paid College Interns
• High School Leaders
• Sample Constitutions
• DM Speaks Out
• More Resources
• Intern Training Modules
• Money on My Mind
• Attacks On Democracy
• Voting Rights
• Big Money & Politics
• Issue Intersectionality
• DM In The News

[email protected]

The role of money in politics.

By Democracy Matters at Oklahoma State University

(View the original Prezi presentation  here .)

HOW DO PRIVATELY FUNDED ELECTIONS WORK?

IS THERE ANY WAY WE CAN MAKE CONGRESS ACCOUNTABLE TO THE PEOPLE AGAIN?

YES, AND THIS PLAN EVEN HAS BIPARTISAN SUPPORT FROM CONGRESS AND VOTERS.

WHO IS FIGHTING FOR CLEAN AND FAIR ELECTIONS EVERYDAY?

Publicly Financed Campaigns to Strengthen American Democracy with the Fair Elections Now Act, special interest lobbyists will hold no more influence over clean candidates than do average American citizens. Legislation written and passed by clean candidates will be representative of the needs of their constituents and community. Clean candidates do not have to worry about fundraising and can focus their time in office on representing voters instead of donors. Once elected, clean candidates will represent the interests of voters instead of big donors and special interest lobbyists. Released from having to cater to big donors, clean candidates are able to do the grassroots mobilization and voter outreach that puts them in direct contact with voters. Maine, Arizona, Vermont, Connecticut, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Oregon all have successful forms of a fair election system. 84% of the Maine legislature are clean candidates. When a candidate receives public funding, they are considered a clean candidate and are no longer allowed to raise or spend any private money. To demonstrate broad public support, a candidate must gather signatures supporting their candidacy and small donations that go to fund the fair elections system. Those who demonstrate leadership and have good ideas for their community are given the opportunity to run a competitive campaign, regardless of their own wealth or access to other people’s wealth. It is a voluntary system that protects free speech; other candidates can still choose to raise and spend private money. To qualify for public financing, candidates must demonstrate that they have significant public support from their constituency. To gain favor with big donors, politicians write and pass legislation that favors them at the expense of the public good. Conflicts of interest arise when politicians take money from the same industries for which they must write laws. Instead of focusing on the needs of the people, politicians spend 1/3 of their time in office raising money for their next campaign. To get wealthy special interest money, politicians need to appeal to their needs and interests. Only 0.25% of the population in America donates $200 or more to a political campaign. The majority of campaign funding comes from corporations, banks, billionaires, & wealthy special interests. Donating more money to campaigns gains greater influence over politicians who are in office. To raise money for their campaign, politicians solicit donations from wealthy people and groups. Candidates have to raise and use private funds to finance their campaigns. Campaign staff, office space, advertisements, travel, etc., cost lots of money. In over 90% of congressional races, the candidate who raises the most money wins. To get elected, candidates are forced to run competitive and costly campaigns.

• Skip to search box
• Skip to main content

Princeton University Library

American politics.

• The President and Executive Branch
• Courts and Judicial Politics
• Federal Bureaucracy
• Identities & Politics
• Mass Media & Political Communication

Top Sources

Congressional financial disclosure, campaign finance, lobbying & influence, earmarks and pork, government spending and contracts.

• Parties and Elections
• Public Opinion
• State and Local Politics
• American Political History

Politics Librarian

• OpenSecrets.org Great source for data and analysis on campaign finance at the federal level. Covers contributions to candidates and PACs; campaign spending by outside groups; lobbying and interest groups; personal finances of politicians and the revolving door of politicians to lobbyists; political ad buys; and more. From the Center for Responsive Politics. 1998+ Bulk data freely available for non-commercial use.
• Follow The Money Data and reports on money and spending in state-level politics. Covers campaign finance donations, spending by outside groups, and spending on ballot measures for all 50 states. You can view national or state overviews of spending; get breakdowns by district, candidate, party, industry, incumbency status, and more. The National Institute on Money in State Politics cleans, verified, and standardizes the data. Data can be exported in CSV, XML, or JSON. 1988+
• Database on Ideology, Money in Politics, and Elections (DIME) Campaign finance project by Adam Bonica at Stanford as part of a project to ideologically map political elites, interest groups, and donors in the "political marketplace". The resulting database contains over 500 million political contributions made by individuals and organizations to local, state, and federal elections from 1979 to 2022. A corresponding database of candidates and committees provides additional information on state and federal elections. Data has been extensively cleaned, standardized, and geocoded.
• Capitol Hill Access (formerly CQ Political MoneyLine) This link opens in a new window Provides data and reports for analyzing the flow of money through the U.S. political system. Provides campaign donation data dating to the 1979-80 election cycle and lobbying data from 1999. Track contributions from individual donors, associations, corporations, lobbyists, PACs, 527s and other sources, as well as candidate disbursement details.
• ProPublica House Office Expenditure Data Details the official spending done by the House of Representatives, including lawmakers’ offices, committee offices, and administrative offices, using the official House Statement of Disbursements (see below). One file contains summary information for each office and category of spending, and the other file contains details of each recipient of office spending and its purpose. Note that the data has not been standardized (meaning that "AT&T" might also appear as "A.T.&T."). Quarterly files from 2009-present in .csv. A single file containing 2009-2018 is also available.
• Statement of Disbursements of the House Quarterly report on expenditures by the House, including salaries of staffers and expenses by committees and Members' offices. Digitized by Boston Public Library and the Internet Archive. Since 2009, the House has published disbursements online in .csv format (see the ProPublica link above for cleaned, Excel versions of the 2009+ data). more... less... These can also be found in ProQuest Congressional : Search in House/Senate Documents/Reports and Miscellaneous Publications: [TITLE] "Statement of Disbursements of the House" OR "House of Representatives Detailed Statement of Disbursements" OR [ALL EXCEPT FULL TEXT] ("report of the clerk of the house" OR "annual report of clerk of house" OR "Contingent expenses of House of Representatives") AND (employees OR employes)
• House Financial Disclosure Reports "Financial Disclosure Reports include information about the source, type, amount, or value of the incomes of Members, officers, certain employees of the U.S. House of Representatives and related offices, and candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives." 2007–present.
• Report of the Secretary of the Senate Semi-annual report detailing expenditures by the Senate, including salaries of officers and employees and spending by committees and Members' offices. (Search on "Report of the Secretary of the Senate" in title for Documents/Reports and Misc Publications)
• Senate Financial Disclosure Financial disclosures by Senators and candidates since January 1, 2012. Senator reports are available until six years after the individual ceases to be a Member. Candidate reports are available for one year after the individual is no longer a candidate.
• Senate Gifts/Travel Database Click on Gift/Rule Travel tab. Option to search or download entire database. Senate rules state that "the information must be maintained for a period not longer than four years after receiving the information."
• LegiStorm: Congressional Staff Salaries, Financial Disclosures, and More Information on Congressional salaries, trips, financial disclosures, foreign gifts, earmarks, and more. Salary data on members and staffers from 2000-present; data on privately financed trips from 2000-present; financial disclosures from 2001-present; foreign gifts from 1999-present; earmarks for fiscal years 2008-2010. Limited personal access with free registration.
• Campaign Finance Institute Historical Data Tables Historical data on congressional and presidential election fundraising, expenditures, and party, interest group, and PAC spending. Tables and figures are in PDF and cover 1974-present. Many of these tables are available in Excel (with a slight time lag) from the Vital Statistics on Congress (see chapter 3 on Campaign Finance in Congressional Elections). CFI also produces also other reports as well as a useful Money in Politics Bibliography covering academic literature back to 2006.
• FEC Disclosure Data Download itemized and trend data and filings for contributions and disbursements by/for candidates, committees, PACs, and independent expenditures. Bulk downloads of detailed data are available.
• Historical Database of State Campaign Finance Laws The Campaign Finance Institute has compiled a database of state campaign finance laws covering every state, 1996-2018. There's a visualization tool allowing for easy comparison across key variables and the full database can be downloaded to access more than 500 variables per state-year.
• Links to State Disclosure Offices Links to the official state agency websites for campaign finance, elections, and lobbyist disclosures. From Follow The Money.
• State Campaign Finance Laws and Regulations The National Conference of State Legislatures compiles information on laws and regulations governing campaign finance in all 50 states. It has separate sections on contribution limits, independent expenditures, disclosure requirements, and public financing of elections. Mostly current with some coverage of previous years. Its database of campaign finance legislation goes back to 1999 and is searchable by year, state, type of legislation and status.
• Lobbyview.org Parses Congressional lobbying disclosure reports to provide better coding of lobbying data linking them to congressional bills and their sponsors, industry and issue areas, and company identifiers. Provides bulk data downloads as well as an API. 2000-2020.
• MapLight Bill Positions Database MapLight, a nonpartisan research center, collected over 200,000 positions taken by interest groups on proposed federal legislation at various points in the legislative process, 2007-2022. Fields include Congressional session, bill number and name, type of legislative action, a flag for whether the action was substantive, organization name and ID, position (support/oppose), date, and title of position document. Data in Excel.
• U.S. Senate: Lobbying Reports Database of documents required to be filed by lobbyists under the Lobbying and Disclosure Act (LDA). Database can be searched or downloaded (by quarter), 1999-.
• U.S. House Lobbying Disclosure Search Online database to search lobbying filings back to 2011. Results can be downloaded to .csv, XML, or JSON.
• Corporate Political Disclosure and Accountability The Center for Political Accountability tracks disclosure practices of corporate political spending of the top 300 companies in the S&P 500. It creates an annual index, the CPA-Zicklin Index, ranking companies' disclosure transparency. 2011+
• Washington Representatives Study Includes information about thousands of organizations involved in national politics, their organizational characteristics, and the activities they undertook in the pursuit of policy influence. This collection encompasses all organizations listed in the Washington Representatives directories for 1981, 1991, 2001, 2006, and 2011. These organizations have been classified into 96 categories based on the kinds of interests represented. Variables include organization name, membership category, founding year, and main objective, as well as number of lobbyists hired, number of amicus briefs filed, political action committee (PAC) donations made, and web-based lobbying activities.
• Post-Political Careers Data Replication data for Maxwell Palmer and Benjamin Schneer, "Postpolitical Careers: How Politicians Capitalize on Public Office," The Journal of Politics 81, no. 2 (April 2019): 670-675. Covers more than 1200 former top office holders from 1992-2014 and codes whether they were paid lobbyists or served on boards of public corporations.
• NCCS Data Archive This link opens in a new window The National Center for Charitable Statistics builds compatible national, state, and regional databases and develops uniform standards for reporting on charitable organizations. Includes data on the finances and activities of nonprofit organizations 1989-2017. For other sources, including more current data, see the ProPublica Nonprofit Data Explorer and our subscription to Guidestar Pro .

After Republicans took control of the House and Senate, they placed a moratorium on earmarks in legislation, which appears to have been adhered to since 2011. Some sources for data from previous years is below.

• Taxpayers for Common Sense Earmarks Database Database of Earmarks from a nonpartisan group. FY 2008-2010 currently available online for download in Excel.
• OMB Earmarks Database Database of earmarks from the Office of Management and Budget covering FY2005, 2008, 2009, and 2010. Data is searchable and browseable, and can also be downloaded as a CSV.
• USAspending.gov "USAspending.gov is the publicly accessible, searchable website mandated by the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 to give the American public access to information on how their tax dollars are spent."
• USA Facts Project led by Steven Ballmer to provide a detailed description of federal, state, and local government revenue and spending categorized according to 4 broad constitutionally expressed purposes with associated data on outcomes. All data comes from official sources; generally 1980–present. Also includes the current year data in a detailed 10-K style report.
• Tracking Federal Funds: USAspending.gov and Other Data Sources CRS report on official sources for tracking government spending, Oct. 2018
• << Previous: Mass Media & Political Communication
• Next: Parties and Elections >>
• Last Updated: Apr 3, 2024 2:29 PM
• URL: https://libguides.princeton.edu/politics/american

Money in Politics

Money is a necessary component of any democracy: it enables political participation and representation. However, if not effectively regulated, it can undermine the integrity of political processes and institutions and jeopardize the quality of democracy. Regulations related to the funding of political parties and election campaigns (commonly known as political finance) and lobbying are critical to promote integrity, transparency and accountability in any democracy. 

For the last 20 years, International IDEA has been contributing to the discussion about Money in Politics by analyzing trends, producing comparative data and research, providing technical assistance to oversight agencies and political parties, and convening policy platforms for peer-to-peer learning among the leading practitioners. 

Our work aims to improve the level of transparency and accountability in political processes and institutions worldwide. To this end, International IDEA actively engages in high level global policy fora in relation to SDG 16, anti-corruption, and other governance related issues, and advocating for the importance of political finance regulations. International IDEA also aims to serve as the go-to partner for regional and national actors in advancing evidence-based policy debate and reforms on money in politics.  

Topic Areas

From our databases.

Absence of Corruption (Global Score)

Is there a ban on donations from foreign interests to political parties?  

Is there a ban on corporate donation to political parties?  

Related content

Expert talks on Money in Politics: Why does political finance matter?

International Anti-Corruption Conference

What's the big deal about political financing?

Regulating government affairs: A deep dive into online lobbying registers

Making Cents of It: Perspectives on Political Finance

Joint Statement for Enhanced Political Finance Transparency

Seminar sheds light on political finance in Thailand: Transparency and accountability in focus

Martin Wolf: The Crisis of Democratic Capitalism

Money in Politics Regional Conference 2023 "Online Campaign Finance: Challenges and Solutions"

Webinar 3: Citizens Watching Parliament

International Peer-to Peer Dialogue in Albania: Unlocking the Potential of Political Finance Reporting and Disclosure Systems

Unlocking the Potential of Online Political Finance Reporting & Disclosure Systems

Perceptions of corruption in Fiji and Melanesian anti-corruption mechanisms

Navigating the Wild West of Online Campaign Finance: How Mexico and Belgium are Coping

Protecting Elections: How to up our game against malign online actors

Constituency Development Fund: Can it work?

'A Ray of Hope': The fight against corruption in Melanesian countries

Intrigue and Corruption in Vanuatu

Webinar 2: Corruption and anti-corruption in the Solomon Islands

Roadmap for Digital Reporting and Disclosure of Political Finance for Albania

International IDEA presents findings of diagnostic study on political financing in Paraguay

Are anti-corruption reforms working in Papua New Guinea?

International IDEA launches Political Finance in the Asia and the Pacific region report

A talk with Professor Andrea Carson of La Trobe University about digital campaigning and democracy

Launch of the Digital Campaigning and Political Finance in the Asia and the Pacific Region report

Still Top of the Class? Sweden’s Democracy in a Global Perspective

Time to shed more light on money in Swedish politics

How to successfully regulate online campaign finance?: Some lessons from Latvia

Towards a More Integrated Approach to Lobbying and Political Finance Regulation in the EU

Democratic Reforms for Ukraine's EU Integration: Dialogue with Leading Reformers. Key Takeaways.

Integrity and trust in elections in Albania: Time for a breakthrough in political finance transparency

Democratic Reforms for Ukraine's EU Integration: Dialogue with Leading Reformers

What did political parties really spend on?: Political Finance Transparency in the UK

SDG16 Conference 2022: People-centred governance in a post-pandemic world

Corporate Political Responsibility: The Weakest Link in Money in Politics?

Break the financial bias: Levelling the playing field for women in politics through political finance measures

Political finance for more diversity in politics

Enhancing transparency of online campaign finance

Political Finance Assessment of Fiji Report Launch

Reforming Political Finance Systems in Southeast Asia: Towards Greater Transparency and Accountability

Related projects.

Combating Electoral Foreign Information, Manipulation and Interference

Integrity and Trust in Albanian Elections: Fostering Political Finance Transparency and the Safe Use of Information and Communication Technologies

Consolidation of Paraguayan democracy II

Related databases & tools.

Political Finance Database

Our experts.

Work with us

Our funding and other types of contributions come from our Member States and other financial partners. Become our partner and learn more about how we can jointly undertake actions in Value for Partnership.

Cookie Notice

Our Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy have changed. Please read them to understand your rights and obligations, including how you can use our resources.

By continuing to use this site, without changing your settings, you are indicating that you accept this policy.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

The Influence of Money in Politics

2023, Self-Publishing

This study delves into the pervasive impact of financial resources in politics, focusing on corporate lobbying, special interest groups, campaign financing, Super PACs, the revolving door phenomenon, and the wealth gap's influence on political power. These elements collectively undermine democratic principles, causing concerns about fairness, transparency, and public trust. The recommendations include stricter campaign finance regulations, enhanced transparency, ethical guidelines, and public engagement, aimed at creating a more equitable and responsive political system while mitigating the influence of money and special interests.

Related Papers

Michael Malbin

Michael Bailey

Public Choice

Thomas Stratmann

Jesse Rhodes

Over the last three decades, the Supreme Court has curtailed meaningful limits on political campaign spending and contributions. Te alarming, but predictable, result is the rise of a small group of wealthy elites who make large political contributions with the goal of infuencing election outcomes and policymaking. We are lef with a government that is less responsive to the needs and concerns of ordinary Americans, and more responsive to the needs and concerns of economic elites. To understand what big money in politics means, it is important to understand the &quot;who&quot; and the &quot;what&quot; of political donations: who is spending big money on elections, and what do they want? In the following analysis, we uncover the demographics (the &quot;who&quot;) and policy preferences (the &quot;what&quot;) of the donor class that dominates U.S. campaign funding, in order to shed light on why money in politics is distorting our democracy in favor of economic elites, and particularly w...

Using the results from a unique experiment imbedded in a national survey on attitudes towards money and politics, this paper tests voters’ reaction to the disclosure of campaign contribution information. In particular, we explore reactions to differences in the source and amount of campaign contributions. In general, we find that voters react far more to the source than to the amount of campaign contributions.

Ciara Torres-Spelliscy

Shaun Bowler , Todd Donovan

Many Americans think campaign money has a corrupting influence on Congress. Yet how they think about money in politics is a relatively unexplored topic. This article investigates how the public reasons about campaign money and corruption. Our survey experiments demonstrate that attitudes about campaign money are structured by partisan interest and are also driven by information about sources of campaign money and the amount spent (particularly for large independent expenditures made possible by Citizens United), the method of delivery, and about what the money is spent on. Mass perceptions about corruption of Congress, furthermore, may reflect aversion to negative campaigns as well as attitudes about campaign financiers having undue influence over representatives. These findings not only provide a more nuanced picture of attitudes about campaign money but also have consequences for how we assess reform proposals relating to money and politics.

PSN: Campaign Finance Law & Policy (Topic)

Bruce Ledewitz

Professor Lawrence Lessig has made a great contribution to American public life by drawing attention to the influence of money in politics through his writing, speaking, and organizing. His best-selling book, &quot;Republic, Lost&quot; has galvanized a movement demanding serious campaign finance reform. I agree with the broad outline of his concern about the dependence of Congress on wealthy individuals and entities and the political corruption that this pecuniary dependence entails. So, it is with hesitation that I set out in this Article my reservations concerning Professor Lessig’s analysis of the problem of money. Money does not play quite the dominant role in our politics that he suggests. Money by itself does not select nominees or elect candidates or enact policy. Moreover, Professor Lessig’s analysis overlooks the unique threat that independent political spending poses to American democracy. It is independent spending, rather than money in general, that threatens to undermin...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

The San Diego law review

Nick Nyhart

JOHN MOHAN RAZU

Ferran Martinez Coma

Anthony Gaughan

Yoel Faundez

Jeff Gulati

Craig Holman

Jacob Eisler

Philosophical dimensions of public policy

Peter Levine

American Politics Research

Todd Donovan

Jeff Fischer

Raymond Raja

Christina Pretorius

Monika Köppl Turyna

Clyde Wilcox

Bruno Wilhelm Speck

Ömer Faruk Gençkaya , Damla Cihangir-Tetik

Don Liddick

Nathaniel Sansom

Working Papers

Christopher Cotton

Journal of Economic Policy Reform

Sertac Sonan , Omer Gokcekus

Diana Dwyre

Perspective on Politics

Robin Kolodny

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer

Become a C&E Community Member

Exclusive content, event perks & more! Click the arrow to learn more.

Campaigns & Elections

Why money in politics is so important

It is a near daily complaint during election season: “There’s too much money in politics.”

Every election cycle there is more and more money spent on campaigns, with more and more groups entering the fray. In particular, the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision is often cited as the beginning of a new free-spending era in political campaigning. Many think our political system would be measurably better if there was less money in politics.

Surprisingly, the amount spent on politics is still quite small. During the 2010 cycle, the total spending for all races was $4.6 billion, which was 8 percent higher than the 2008 cycle. Sure, $4.6 billion spent on politics sounds gigantic—until you realize there are about 314 million people in the United States. Even if you just look at the roughly 200 million people who are eligible to vote, this would amount to the average eligible voter spending $22.50 per every two-year election cycle.

That’s really not so much money. Just compare that to the size of some other industries in America. Look at the amount spent on coffee consumption, for example. A recent study says that the average American worker spends over $1,000 per year on coffee. Per week, the average amount spent is $21.

Subscribe for Industry News Plus the Latest in Campaign Strategy & Tactics

The average American spends three times as much on bottled water, four times as much on dog food,  four times as much on gym memberships, fifteen times as much on lottery tickets, and twice as much on plastic surgery. 

Yes, political spending has increased markedly in recent years, but the scale of the industry is still quite small. Even though the industry is less lucrative than most realize, money is still key. If it wasn’t, then shrewd political observers wouldn’t monitor fundraising numbers like hawks and politicians wouldn’t build up war chests to scare off challengers.

Why is money so important to the political process that there will be non-stop political ads this fall?

Name recognition is the main reason. Almost everyone in America knows that Barack Obama is the current president, but beyond the presidency, the amount of people who couldn’t even name their U.S. senators or the governor of their state is alarmingly high. Even well-educated people have trouble identifying their state representatives, let alone their city council, county council, or township elected officials.

There is a small core of people who are either in the political world or political junkies, who have the news on all day. These people really do not need political advertising to tell them how to vote. They will seek out ways on their own to learn about candidates and tend to be strong partisans, who won’t be convinced by opposition advertising.

But the large majority of Americans are not like this. Most people “outsource” their political engagement to others. This is not necessarily a matter of intelligence or civic-mindedness. A small business owner, who works 60-hour weeks, can be very involved in their community but has no time to investigate candidates on their own. So he or she may rely on people they trust, like the local Chamber of Commerce, to tell them which candidates are in their best interest.

It’s not realistic in a bustling society like the United States for every voter to be an expert on every candidate that will be on the ballot. But this means that the main way politicians can influence voters is through political advertisements. For a democratic republic to survive, voters have to be engaged in the political process.

The only way the barrage of political ads will go away is for the entire electorate to be so well-educated that political advertising would be worthless. And as long as most want to live a normal lifestyle, enduring political advertisements will be one of the costs of living in a free society.

Chris Palko works as an assistant media analyst at Smart Media Group, a Republican political media buying agency in Alexandria, Va. He is a graduate of American University and George Washington University’s Graduate School of Political Management.

A version of this post was also published on Smart Media Group’s blog, Smart Blog .

Become a member and get access to exclusive content.

Upcoming events, thinking beyond 2024: setting a long-term vision for your political business, subscribe to our newsletter.

For the latest in campaign strategy & tactics plus industry news and analysis, subscribe for free today.

" * " indicates required fields

Follow Campaign and Elections for more daily content.

Essay on Money And Politics

Students are often asked to write an essay on Money And Politics in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Money And Politics

The link between money and politics.

Money is like fuel in politics. Just as cars need fuel to move, politicians need money to run their campaigns. They use this money to tell people about their ideas and why they should be chosen. Without money, it’s very hard for them to spread their message.

Where Does the Money Come From?

Problems money can cause.

Sometimes, when politicians get a lot of money from one person or a company, they might feel they owe them a favor. This can lead to decisions that are good for the donors but not always for everyone else.

Rules About Money in Politics

Many places have rules about how much money a person or company can give to a politician. These rules are there to try to make sure no one has too much influence just because they have a lot of money.

250 Words Essay on Money And Politics

Why money matters.

Candidates with more money can share their message better than those with less money. This often means they have a better chance of winning. The reason is simple: when more people hear about a candidate, they are more likely to vote for them. However, this raises a question: Is it fair? If only rich people or those with rich friends can win, it might mean not all good ideas get heard.

The Influence of Donors

People and companies who give money to politicians sometimes do it because they support their ideas. But other times, they might want something in return, like a new law that helps their business. This can make politics less about what is good for everyone and more about what is good for the people with money.

Rules and Laws

Many places have rules about money in politics. These rules are made to keep things fair and to stop people from having too much power just because they have a lot of money. The rules can limit how much money someone can give to a candidate or require that candidates tell everyone where their money comes from.

In conclusion, money is a big part of politics, but it is important to make sure it does not get in the way of fair and honest government. Rules can help, but it is always up to the people to watch and make sure politics is about good ideas, not just about who has more money.

500 Words Essay on Money And Politics

Introduction to money and politics.

Money and politics are like two peas in a pod; they go hand in hand. When we talk about politics, it’s not just about the leaders and the laws they make. It’s also about the money that is used to get these leaders elected and how they spend it once they are in power.

The Cost of Elections

Now, you might wonder where all this money comes from. Well, the candidates get money from people who support them, called donors. These can be regular people, big companies, or groups that have a lot of money and want to help a candidate win. In return, these donors sometimes expect the candidate to make decisions that will benefit them if they win the election.

Money Influences Decisions

This leads us to another point: the influence of money on decisions. Imagine if a company gave a lot of money to help a candidate win, and then that candidate becomes a leader. The company might want something in return, like a new law that helps their business. This can be a problem because it might mean the leader is making decisions that are good for the company but not necessarily good for everyone else.

Because money can have such a big impact, there are rules about how it can be used in politics. These rules are supposed to make sure that no one has too much influence just because they have a lot of money. The rules can limit how much money people can give to candidates and make sure that everyone knows where the money is coming from.

The Role of Citizens

In conclusion, money is a big part of politics, from running for office to making decisions as a leader. While it’s necessary for candidates to have money to tell people about their ideas, it’s also important that this money doesn’t give some people too much power. By having rules and staying informed, we can work towards a fair system where the best ideas win, not just the ones with the most money behind them.

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Three ways politicians always promise to raise money without increasing taxes – and why they rarely deliver

Honorary Research Fellow, City Political Economy Research Centre, City, University of London

Disclosure statement

Steve Schifferes does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

City, University of London provides funding as a founding partner of The Conversation UK.

View all partners

After weeks of controversy over Labour and Conservative costings – in which each side accused the other of dishonesty – the manifestos show that both parties had wildly exaggerated their rival’s plans.

But there has been far less focus on their plans to fund the promises, which both parties claim are “fully costed”. This may be because, to a greater or lesser extent, they are both banking on income streams that may not materialise.

There are three main tropes that UK political parties have used in past elections to square this circle without much political cost. They are a crackdown on tax evasion, efficiency savings in public services, and sharp cuts in welfare spending.

These potential savings are attractive because they feed into popular cliches. That the government and the NHS are bloated bureaucracies. That there are lots of people getting benefits who could get a job. And that there are plenty of rich people who are avoiding taxes that the government could easily collect.

But in practice they have often proved difficult to implement, yielded far less than projected and have taken much longer before they realised any savings at all . It often turns out that there are significant political costs, and has been insufficient preparation for such big changes. Having an aspiration to save money is not the same as having a plan.

Want more election coverage from The Conversation’s academic experts? Over the coming weeks, we’ll bring you informed analysis of developments in the campaign and we’ll fact check the claims being made. Sign up for our new, weekly election newsletter , delivered every Friday throughout the campaign and beyond.

The Conservative manifesto is littered with optimistic claims in all three areas. Their plans are completely funded by £12 billion in welfare cuts, £7 billion in efficiency savings and £6 billion in tax-avoidance crackdowns, which they claim will pay for all their tax cuts as well as a big boost to defence spending.

But their very modest spending plans do not include any money to fund their previously announced plans to fund thousands of additional childcare places , expand the size of the NHS workforce or meet the £10 billion cost of compensation for the infected blood scandal .

Labour’s manifesto is much more cautious both in its tax and spending proposals. The total cost of its planned improvements to NHS waiting lists, more teachers and mental health staff, and free breakfast clubs, amount to just £4.8 billion a year by 2028-29. It claims that its previously announced plans to crack down on specific tax loopholes, and charge VAT on private school fees, will more than fund these promises.

But it also says it can raise £5 billion from a further crackdown on tax avoidance.

Labour also has factored in some efficiency savings (called “reallocations”), but these amount to a much more modest £1.5 billion. The party has been coy about whether it will seek more efficiency savings, but shadow health secretary Wes Streeting has suggested that the NHS needs reform rather than pouring money into a “leaky bucket”.

Tax dodgers

It is significant that the one figure neither party has questioned is the large amount both say they could raise by cracking down on tax evasion.

HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) has already been reducing the “tax gap” . But further progress would probably require a big increase in staffing as well as improvements in technology, something Labour (but not the Conservatives) explicitly recognise. Given the severe staff cuts at HMRC , it might be some time before the gains outweigh the costs.

HMRC says that the bulk of tax avoidance is by small businesses, not the rich. But it could be politically costly to target a sector that both parties want to show they support as part of their growth strategy.

Bloated bureaucrats

The Conservatives have a long list of efficiency savings (mainly from sacking people, including tens of thousands of civil servants and 5,500 NHS managers ). But studies suggest that there are actually too few managers to run an organisation like the NHS, Europe’s largest employer, efficiently.

NHS productivity has fallen since the pandemic, but this may stem from the fact that experienced staff are demoralised and leaving in record numbers . So productivity might actually be improved in the long term by raising pay as well as training more doctors and nurses, rather than with cuts.

And factors outside the NHS’s control, for example the lack of social care beds, have had a significant effect on waiting lists .

There is no doubt that spending on health-related welfare benefits has risen sharply. But it is much less clear whether making big cuts would be either possible or desirable. Spending sharply increased after the pandemic, with disability and incapacity benefits forecast to rise by £9.7 billion by 2028-29.

The Conservatives have outlined a broad range of measures to curb disability benefits , but the key measure would be stopping key benefits for those who refuse to go to work if judged capable after one year.

But the very large savings of £12 billion pencilled in by the Conservatives would be difficult to achieve without significant pain , for example by forcing one in five people off disability benefits. Despite this, Rishi Sunak claimed recently it would be possible to shave nearly £35 billion from the bill.

Labour has not made explicit claims about how much can be saved by reducing the disability benefit bill – but might be tempted to try for both ideological and financial reasons.

Its manifesto says the welfare system will be underpinned by rights and responsibilities – and that there will be “consequences” for those who “do not fulfil their obligations”. But it stops short of spelling out what those would be.

This election is being held at a very difficult time. Living standards have been squeezed, public services have been battered and the economy is barely growing.

But making false promises or providing seemingly easy answers during the campaign may make it harder for people to trust politicians after the election.

No matter how attractive some funding sources may appear in theory there are unlikely to be any magic formulas, whether by saving on battered public services, squeezing those on benefits, or finding hidden tax revenues. A hard slog lies ahead for whoever wins the election.

• Tax evasion
• Conservative Party
• Labour Party
• public sector
• Welfare state
• Keir Starmer
• Rishi Sunak
• general election

Social Media Producer

Student Recruitment & Enquiries Officer

Dean (Head of School), Indigenous Knowledges

Senior Research Fellow - Curtin Institute for Energy Transition (CIET)

Laboratory Head - RNA Biology

Last updated 20/06/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings .

Login Alert

• > Journals
• > American Political Science Review
• > Volume 71 Issue 1
• > Money, Politics, and Democracy: A Review Essay*

Article contents

Money, politics, and democracy: a review essay *.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Access options

Financing the 1968 Election . By Herbert E. Alexander. (Lexington, Mass.: Heath Lexington, 1971. Pp. 355. $12.50.)

1 The Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1974, Public Law 93–433, 93d Congress, 2d Sess., 1974.

2 Buckley v. Valeo , –U.S.–, 96 S. Ct. 612 (1976). A more complete description of the decision is found in the appropriate sections of this essay.

3 Full public subsidies are available to candidates of major parties–those receiving 25 per cent or more of the vote in the last presidential election. Proportional subsidies are available to candidates of minor parties–those receiving between five per cent and 25 per cent of the vote in the last election. And postelection subsidies are available to candidates of parties which qualify as either major or minor parties because of the votes received in the current election.

4 Heard , Alexander , The Costs of Democracy ( Chapel Hill : University of North Carolina Press , 1960 ), p. vii Google Scholar .

5 These compilations were published by the Federal Communications Commission under the title Survey of Political Broadcasting for each election year from 1960 through 1970. The 1972 data were published as a congressional document. U.S. Congress, Senate, Sub-Committee on Communications, Committee on Commerce, Hearings on S. 372, Appendix A , 93d Congress, 1st Sess., 1973.

6 Alexander's , earlier presidential studies are Financing the 1960 Election ( Princeton : Citizens' Research Foundation , 1972 ) Google Scholar ; Financing the 1964 Election (Princeton: Citizens' Research Foundation, 1966);and Financing the 1968 Election ( Princeton : Citizens' Research Foundation , 1970 ) Google Scholar .

7 1972 Congressional Campaign Finances; 1972 Federal Campaign Finances: Interest Groups and Political Parties; 1974 Congressional Campaign Finances .

8 Fleishman , Joel and Greenwald , Carol , “ Public Interest Litigation and Political Finance Reform ,” The Annals 425 (May, 1976 ), 116 Google Scholar .

9 Heard, The Costs of Democracy , ch. 8.

10 Owens, Trends in Campaign Spending in California, 1958-1970: Tests of Factors Influencing Costs .

11 Owen's list of variables for testing was drawn from Heard , , The Costs of Democracy , pp. 280 – 287 Google Scholar ; Adamany , David , Financing Politics ( Madison : University of Wisconsin Press , 1969 ), pp. 61 – 107 Google Scholar ; and Adamany , David , Campaign Finance in America ( North Scituate, Mass. : Duxbury Press , 1972 ), pp. 51 – 78 Google Scholar .

12 Dawson , Paul and Zinser , James , “ Political Finance and Participation in Congressional Elections ,” The Annals 425 (May, 1976 ), 59 – 73 Google Scholar .

13 Penniman , , “ Financing Campaigns in the Public Interest ,” Campaign Finances: Two Views of the Political and Constitutional Implications , p. 1 Google Scholar .

14 Winter, “Money, Politics and the First Amendment,” Campaign Finances: Two Views of the Political and Constitutional Implications .

15 Alexander , , Money In Politics , p. 22 Google Scholar .

16 Alexander , , Money In Politics , p. 37 Google Scholar .

17 Buchanan , William and Bird , Agnes , Money as a Campaign Resource: Tennessee Democratic Senatorial Primaries, 1948–1964 ( Princeton : Citizens' Research Foundation , 1966 ) Google Scholar .

18 Dunn , , Financing Presidential Campaigns , p. 9 Google Scholar .

19 Dawson , Paul and Zinser , James , “ Broadcast Expenditures and Electoral Outcomes in the 1970 Congressional Elections , Public Opinion Quarterly 35 (Fall, 1971 ), 398 – 402 CrossRef Google Scholar .

20 Dawson , and Zinser , , “ Broadcast Expenditures and Electoral Outcomes in the 1970 Congressional Elections ,” p. 400 Google Scholar .

21 Patterson , Thomas and McClure , Robert , “ Television and the Less-Interested Voter: The Costs of an Informed Electorate ,” The Annals 425 (May, 1976 ), 88 – 97 Google Scholar .

22 Patterson and McClure, p. 96.

23 Alexander , , Money In Politics , p. 20 Google Scholar .

24 Dunn , , Financing Presidential Campaigns , p. 20 Google Scholar .

25 Dunn, p. 21.

26 Winter , , “ Money, Politics and the First Amendment ,” p. 52 Google Scholar .

27 The class bias of campaign giving is described in Adamany , David and Agree , George , Political Money ( Baltimore : The Johns Hopkins University Press , 1975 ), pp. 29 – 31 Google Scholar .

28 An outstanding treatment of the uses and misuses of money during the 1972 campaign is Alexander, Financing the 1972 Election , chaps. 3,12,13.

29 Nichols , , Financing Elections , p. 60 Google Scholar .

30 Nichols, pp. 93–94.

31 Alexander , , Money in Politics , p. 12 Google Scholar .

32 President's Commission on Campaign Costs, Financing Presidential Campaigns (Washington, 1962).

33 Alexander, Financing the 1972 Election , ch. 2. For the Comptroller General's perspective, see Staats , Elmer , “ Impact of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 ,” The Annals 425 (May, 1976 ), 98 – 113 Google Scholar .

34 Alexander , , Financing the 1972 Election , p. 29 Google Scholar .

35 Alexander, Money in Politics , chap. 12.

36 Peabody , et al. , To Enact a Law , p. 5 Google Scholar .

37 Berry , Jeffrey M. and Goldman , Jerry , “ Congress and Public Policy: A Study of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 ,” Harvard Journal on Legislation 10 (February, 1973 ), 331 – 365 Google Scholar .

38 Adamany , David and Agree , George , “ Election Campaign Financing: The 1974 Reforms ,” Political Science Quarterly 90 (Summer, 1975 ), 202 – 211 CrossRef Google Scholar .

39 Federal , Election Commission, Analysis of Federal and State Campaign Finance Law ( Washington , 1975 ) Google Scholar .

40 Alexander , , Money in Politics , p. 234 Google Scholar . Although the Supreme Court's decision in Buckley will modify much of the commentary, the most thoughtful analyses of the congressional power to regulate campaign finance, the constitutional limits on such regulations, and the specific problems of expenditure limits, contribution ceilings, disclosure, and public subsidies are Rosenthal , Albert J. , Federal Regulation of Campaign Finance: Some Constitutional Questions ( Princeton : Citizens' Research Foundation , 1972 ) Google Scholar ; Fleishman , Joel L. , “ Freedom of Speech and Equality of Political Opportunity: The Constitutionality of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 ,” North Carolina Law Review 51 (January, 1973 ), 389 – 483 Google Scholar ; Fleishman , Joel L. , “ Public Financing of Election Campaigns: Constitutional Constraints on Steps Toward Equality of Political Influence of Citizens ,” North Carolina Law Review 52 (December, 1973 ), 349 – 416 Google Scholar ; and Biden , Joseph R. Jr. , “ Public Financing of Elections: Legislative Proposals and Constitutional Questions ,” Northwestern University Law Review 69 (March-April, 1974 ), 1 – 70 Google Scholar .

41 96S.Ct. 612, at 634-635. My own view that the constitutional issues surrounding expenditure and contribution limits are separable is spelled out in Adamany , and Agree, Political Money , pp. 62 – 70 Google Scholar .

42 96S.Ct. 612, at 635.

43 96S.Ct. 612, at 638.

44 Rosenthal , Albert J. , “ The Constitution and Campaign Finance Regulation After Buckley v. Valeo ,” The Annals 425 (May, 1976 ), 130 Google Scholar .

45 Nicholson , Marlene Arnold , “ Campaign Financing and Equal Protection ,” Stanford Law Review 26 (April, 1974 ), 815 – 854 CrossRef Google Scholar .

46 Thayer , , Who Shakes The Money Tree? , p. 296 Google Scholar .

47 The difficulty of making effective use of federal campaign finance reports is illustrated by the fact that 269,500 pages of data were received by the filing officers during the 1972 campaign. How can this volume of information be examined and the crucial information transmitted to the public during the short term of a political campaign? See Alexander , , Financing the 1972 Election , p. 12 Google Scholar .

48 My own reservations about the effectiveness of disclosure have been expressed in Adamany , and Agree, Political Money , pp. 103 – 115 Google Scholar .

49 96 S.Ct. 612, at 665.

50 96 S.Ct. 612, at 661.

51 Adamany , and Agree, Political Money , pp. 123 – 128 Google Scholar .

52 Winter , , Campaign Financing and Political Freedom , p. 25 Google Scholar .

53 survey of the failure of parties, including Socialist parties, in many nations to meet campaign costs from dues payments is found in Heidenheimer , Arnold J. , “ Comparative Party Finance: Notes on Practices and Toward A Theory ,” Journal of Politics 25 (November, 1963 ), 791 – 795 CrossRef Google Scholar . Also, Epstein , Leon D. , Political Parties in Western Democracies ( New York : Praeger , 1967 , pp. 245 – 246 Google Scholar . Increasingly the German Social Democrats have relied on public subsidies rather than membership dues. Ulrich Duebber and Braunthal , Gerard , “ West Germany ,” Journal of Politics 25 (November, 1963 ), 784 – 786 Google Scholar . Also, Schleth , Uwe and Pinto-Duschinsky , Michael , “ Why Public Subsidies Have Become the Major Sources of Party Funds in West Germany, but Not in Great Britain ,” in Comparative Political Finance , ed. Heidenheimer , Arnold J. ( Lexington, Mass. : D.C. Heath , 1970 ), pp. 43 – 46 Google Scholar .

54 Adamany , , Financing Politics , pp. 175 – 181 Google Scholar .

55 96 S.Ct. 612, at 671 (1976).

56 The Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1976, Public Law 94–283, 94th Congress, 2d Sess., 1976.

57 Rosenthal , , “ The Constitution and Campaign Finance Regulations after Buckley v. Valeo ,” p, 132 Google Scholar .

58 Agree , George , “ Public Financing After the Supreme Court Decision ,” The Annals 425 (May, 1976 ), 135 Google Scholar .

59 Agree, p. 135.

60 My views on policy goals and measures to achieve those goals, especially a voucher system for public financing, are advanced in Adamany and Agree, Political Money , esp. chaps. 10 and 11. Some of these proposals and their supporting arguments are elaborated in Agree, “Public Financing After the Supreme Court Decision.”

This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by Crossref .

• Google Scholar

View all Google Scholar citations for this article.

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle .

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

• Volume 71, Issue 1
• David Adamany (a1)
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1956971

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox .

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive .

Reply to: Submit a response

- No HTML tags allowed - Web page URLs will display as text only - Lines and paragraphs break automatically - Attachments, images or tables are not permitted

Your details

Your email address will be used in order to notify you when your comment has been reviewed by the moderator and in case the author(s) of the article or the moderator need to contact you directly.

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests.

Please list any fees and grants from, employment by, consultancy for, shared ownership in or any close relationship with, at any time over the preceding 36 months, any organisation whose interests may be affected by the publication of the response. Please also list any non-financial associations or interests (personal, professional, political, institutional, religious or other) that a reasonable reader would want to know about in relation to the submitted work. This pertains to all the authors of the piece, their spouses or partners.

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

• Beyond Distrust: How Americans View Their Government
• 6. Perceptions of elected officials and the role of money in politics

Table of Contents

• 1. Trust in government: 1958-2015
• 2. General opinions about the federal government
• 3. Views of government’s performance and role in specific areas
• 4. Ratings of federal agencies, Congress and the Supreme Court
• 5. Political engagement and views of government
• 7. Views of the political parties and how they manage government
• 8. Perceptions of the public’s voice in government and politics
• 9. Views of the nation, how it’s changing and confidence in the future
• 10. Government and taxes
• 11. How government compares with other national institutions
• Methodology
• Appendix A: Why partisans include ‘leaners’

A major factor in the public’s negative attitudes about the federal government is its deep skepticism of elected officials. Unlike opinions about government performance and power, Republicans and Democrats generally concur in their criticisms of elected officials.

Asked to name the biggest problem with government today, many cite Congress, politics, or a sense of corruption or undue outside influence . At the same time, large majorities of the public view elected officials as out of touch, self-interested, dishonest and selfish. And a 55% majority now say that ordinary Americans would do a better job at solving the nation’s problems than their elected representatives .

The 2016 campaign is on pace to break records for campaign spending. A large majority of Americans (76%) – including identical shares of Republicans and Democrats – say money has a greater role on politics than in the past. Moreover, large majorities of both Democrats (84%) and Republicans (72%) favor limiting the amount of money individuals and organizations can spend on campaigns and issues.

Few say elected officials put the country’s interests before their own

Just 19% say elected officials in Washington try hard to stay in touch with voters back home; 77% say elected officials lose touch with the people quickly.

A similar 74% say most elected officials “don’t care what people like me think”; just 23% say elected officials care what they think.

The public also casts doubt on the commitment of elected officials to put the country’s interests ahead of their own. Roughly three-quarters (74%) say elected officials put their own interests ahead of the country’s, while just 22% say elected officials put the interests of the country first.

These views are widely held across the political spectrum, though conservative Republicans and Republican leaners are particularly likely to say elected officials are self-interested: 82% say this, compared with 71% of moderate and liberal Republicans, and similar proportions of conservative and moderate (69%) and liberal (73%) Democrats.

Negative views of politicians on these measures are nothing new, though the sense that politicians don’t care what people think is more widely held in recent years: Today, 74% say this, up from 69% in 2011, 62% in 2003, and a narrower 55% majority in 2000.

Majorities across party lines say politicians don’t care much about what they think, though as has been the case since 2011, more Republicans than Democrats currently say this (78% vs. 69%). In 2004, when both the presidency and Congress were held by the GOP, Democrats (71%) were more likely than Republicans (54%) to say elected officials in Washington didn’t care much about them. Throughout much of the late 1990s, there were no significant partisan differences in these views.

Top problems of elected officials

When asked to name in their own words the biggest problem they see with elected officials in Washington, many Americans volunteer issues with their integrity and honesty, or mention concerns about how they represent their constituents.

The influence of special interest money on elected officials tops the list of named problems; 16% say this. Another 11% see elected officials as dishonest or as liars. These concerns are named by similar proportions of Republicans and Democrats.

One-in-ten respondents (10%) say elected officials are out of touch with Americans, and another 10% say they only care about their political careers. Republicans and Republican-leaning independents are slightly more likely than Democrats to name these as problems.

In contrast, Democrats are twice as likely as Republicans to volunteer that the biggest problem with elected officials is that they are not willing to compromise (14% vs. 7%).

Elected officials seen as ‘intelligent,’ not ‘honest’

To the general public, elected officials in Washington are not much different from the typical American when it comes to their intelligence or their work ethic, but they are viewed as considerably less honest, somewhat less patriotic and somewhat more selfish.

Two-thirds (67%) say that “intelligent” describes elected officials at least fairly well, the same share that says this about the typical American. Business leaders, by comparison, are seen as more intelligent (83% say this describes them at least fairly well).

About half of Americans say elected officials (48%) and average Americans (50%) are lazy; just 29% say this about business leaders.

But assessments of elected officials’ honesty are far more negative. Just 29% say that “honest” describes elected officials at least fairly well, while 69% say “honest” does not describe elected officials well. Business leaders are viewed more positively: 45% say they are honest. And nearly seven-in-ten (69%) consider the typical American honest.

About six-in-ten (63%) view elected officials as patriotic, a larger share than says this about business leaders (55%). Still, far more (79%) view ordinary Americans as patriotic than say this about elected officials.

And the public overwhelmingly thinks of elected officials as selfish: 72% say this describes them at least fairly well, including 41% who say this trait describes them “very well.” Though similar shares say the term “selfish” applies at least fairly well to both business leaders (67%) and the typical American (68%), fewer say it describes those groups very well.

Majorities of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, and Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, see elected officials as intelligent, patriotic and selfish, though there are modest differences in the ratings of elected officials across party lines.

Only about a third of Democrats (34%) and even fewer Republicans (25%) say “honest” describes elected officials. Similarly modest gaps are seen on other traits, with Democrats consistently viewing elected officials more positively (and less negatively) than Republicans.

There are few differences between Democrats and Republicans on views of the typical American. Majorities in both parties rate the typical American as intelligent, honest and patriotic, albeit selfish.

Republicans express more positive views of business leaders than do Democrats. More Republicans than Democrats say “patriotic” describes business leaders very or fairly well (66% vs. 48%). And while Democrats rate elected officials and business leaders similarly on honesty (respectively, 34% and 39% say each is honest), Republicans are twice as likely to call business leaders honest than to say this about elected officials (55% vs. 25%).

Views of elected officials and views of government

Just 12% of Americans have attitudes across a variety of measures that suggest they view elected officials positively (tending to rate elected officials as honest, intelligent, in touch with and concerned about average Americans, and putting the country’s interest above their own self-interest), while 57% largely view elected officials negatively (tending to take the opposing view on these measures); about three-in-ten (31%) hold about an equal mix of positive and negative views of politicians.

These views of elected officials are strongly correlated with overall attitudes about government. Among those with positive views of politicians, 53% say they trust government all or most of the time; among those with negative views, just 7% do. And while 42% of those with positive views say they are “basically content” with the federal government and just 4% express anger, just 9% of those with negative views of elected officials say they are content and fully 29% express anger.

Compromising with the other party

The public is also divided over the extent to which elected officials should make compromises with people with whom they disagree. While 49% of the public say they like elected officials who compromise, 47% say they prefer those who stick to their positions.

Among partisans and leaning independents, though, there is a clearer preference. Nearly six-in-ten Republicans and Republican leaners (59%) like elected officials who stick to their positions. The preference is especially strong among conservative Republicans, 65% of whom say this.

In contrast, 60% of Democrats and Democratic leaners prefer elected officials who make compromises over those who stick to their positions. Two-thirds of liberal Democrats (67%) agree. This ideological divide over compromise in principle is little different today from in recent years .

More people blame lawmakers than the political system

As was the case five years ago, more Americans blame problems with Congress on the members themselves, not a broken political system. Overall, 53% say the political system works just fine, and that elected officials are the root of the problems in Congress; 37% say most members of Congress have good intentions, and it’s the political system that is broken (37%).

There are only modest partisan or demographic differences on this question, though moderate and liberal Republicans and leaners are somewhat more likely than other partisan and ideological groups to say problems are systemic (47% say this, compared with no more than 38% of those in other ideological groups).

Views of the role of money in politics

The vast sums of money flowing into the 2016 presidential election have once again brought attention to the issue of campaign finance.

This issue resonates broadly with the public: 77% of Americans say there should be limits on the amount of money individuals and organizations can spend on political campaigns and issues. Just 20% say that individuals and organizations should be able to spend freely on campaigns.

The perception that the influence of money on politics is greater today than in the past is also widely shared. Roughly three-quarters of the public (76%) believe this is the case, while about a quarter (22%) says that money’s influence on politics and elected officials is little different today than in the past.

And as the presidential campaign continues, nearly two-thirds of Americans (64%) say that the high cost of running a presidential campaign discourages many good candidates from running. Only about three-in-ten (31%) are confident that good candidates can raise whatever money they need.

Broad concerns about money in politics – and the specific worry that costly campaigns discourage worthy candidates – are not new. In a January 1988 face-to-face survey, 64% said the high cost of campaigns acts as a barrier to many good candidates.

Most Americans, including majorities in both parties, believe that new laws would be effective in reducing the role of money in politics. Roughly six-in-ten overall (62%) say that new laws would be effective in limiting the role of money in politics; 35% say new laws would not be effective in achieving this goal.

Bipartisan support for limiting campaign spending

Opinions on campaign finance and its effects on the political system are widely shared; majorities across demographic and partisan groups say there should be limits on campaign spending, that money’s impact on politics has increased and that the high cost of campaigns is driving away good candidates.

Partisan differences on all three measures are modest. Republicans and Republican-leaning independents (72%) are less likely than Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents (84%) to say that there should be limits on campaign spending. However, support for spending limits is high even among conservative Republicans and leaners –roughly two-thirds (68%) think there should be limits on how much individuals and organizations can spend.

Democrats and leaners are somewhat more likely to say that the high cost of campaigns today discourages good candidates: 68% say this compared with 62% of Republicans and leaners.

While most Americans believe that new laws would be effective in reducing the role of money in politics, there are educational and partisan differences in how widely these views are held.

Fully three-quarters of those with post-graduate degrees say new laws would be effective in this regard, compared with 57% of those with no more than a high school education.

More Democrats and leaners (71%) than Republicans and leaners (58%) say that new laws would be effective in limiting the influence of money in politics. Nonetheless, majorities across all educational and partisan categories say that new laws could be written that would effectively reduce the role of money in politics.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Trust, Facts & Democracy

Americans’ Dismal Views of the Nation’s Politics

Public trust in government: 1958-2023, americans differ by party, ideology over the impact of social media on u.s. democracy, social media seen as mostly good for democracy across many nations, but u.s. is a major outlier, in advanced and emerging economies, similar views on how social media affects democracy and society, most popular, report materials.

• Interactive : Trust in Government, 1958-2015
• 2015 Governance Survey

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

© 2024 Pew Research Center

Essay Service Examples Economics Money

Influence of Money in Politics: Essay

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Our writers will provide you with an essay sample written from scratch: any topic, any deadline, any instructions.

Cite this paper

Related essay topics.

Get your paper done in as fast as 3 hours, 24/7.

Related articles

Most popular essays

• Career Choice

Money is undeniably vital in life. You can’t pay your bills and nourish your family on just love...

There are regular discussions about how money makes people happier, which is more of a...

Money makes the world go round, well that saying is partially true. Money influences our...

Saving is an attitude of the person keeping extra money before or after expenses. It is very...

“The game is rigged to work for those who already have money and power.” The celebrity world is...

• American Government
• Minimum Wage

It's time we at long last take a gander at the cons of the conflict rather than the pros. Numerous...

'Money cannot buy true happiness'. Some people may say that this adage is no longer relevant...

• American Dream

Immigration has been a significant impact on Americans' dreams since the late 1800s-1900s...

Money saving is a habit, a process where we learn to be realistic. It is the most significant...

Join our 150k of happy users

• Get original paper written according to your instructions
• Save time for what matters most

Fair Use Policy

EduBirdie considers academic integrity to be the essential part of the learning process and does not support any violation of the academic standards. Should you have any questions regarding our Fair Use Policy or become aware of any violations, please do not hesitate to contact us via [email protected].

We are here 24/7 to write your paper in as fast as 3 hours.

Provide your email, and we'll send you this sample!

By providing your email, you agree to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy .

Say goodbye to copy-pasting!

Get custom-crafted papers for you.

Enter your email, and we'll promptly send you the full essay. No need to copy piece by piece. It's in your inbox!

• American business should not empower a criminal, says Reid Hoffman

No rational CEO would want a capricious strongman in the White House, argues the entrepreneur

W OULD NEW YORK be a global financial capital, or even a prosperous city, if markets had no basis for trusting the transactions that happen there? Obviously not.

Businesses and investors rely on a robust legal system—especially courts of law and impartial, fact-based trials by jury—to enforce contracts and punish fraud. That’s why, in the past decade alone, New York City prosecutors have brought thousands of felony charges for falsifying business records. It’s a crime because it strikes at American prosperity.

For American business, the rule of law is essential. It is the soil in which commerce can take root and grow. Without this stable, predictable, rules-based environment, New York, and America, would not have become the hubs of innovation, investment, profit and progress that they are.

Unfortunately, many American business leaders have recently developed a kind of myopia, miscalculating what politics, and which political leaders, will truly support their long-term success. Perhaps this stems from their having lived their entire lives in a stable legal regime that they now take for granted. But a robust, reliable legal system is not a given. It is a necessity we can ill afford to live without. We trade it away at our peril.

Which makes it all the more lamentable that a growing number of America’s corporate and financial leaders are opening their wallets for Donald Trump.

Of course, few of these leaders would do actual business with Mr Trump. Even fewer would trust him to pay his bills. Long before the Electoral College made him president in 2016, Mr Trump was known as a liar and grifter who would browbeat vendors and debtors. More recently, American courts—including two unanimous juries—have found him to have engaged in sexual assault, defamation, fraud (including misuse of charitable funds) and—by a unanimous Colorado Supreme Court—insurrection.

So why are so many of my business-leader peers writing cheques to give nearly unchecked power to a man with whom they wouldn’t sign a condominium contract? There are a few explanations.

Some kid themselves, or pretend, that Mr Trump can be normal and controlled. Never mind the striking refusal by his former vice-president, Mike Pence, to endorse him as the Republican nominee. Or the stinging words of John Kelly, Mr Trump’s longest-serving chief of staff, who has called him “a person that has nothing but contempt for our democratic institutions, our constitution, and the rule of law”. Dozens of other former Trump officials, military leaders and campaign operatives echo this analysis.

Others of Mr Trump’s business-class supporters claim that President Joe Biden is somehow more dangerous than the convicted felon and pathological liar. The laziest cite the actions of far-left figures who play no role in Mr Biden’s administration. Relatively more serious critics mention disagreeable Democratic economic policies. When they manage to get specific with their criticisms, I sometimes agree. But if economics is their metric, it seems not just irrational but deeply irresponsible for them to ignore some clear financial truths. Under Mr Biden America has hit record after record: in stockmarkets, oil and gas production, employment and more. And its GDP growth is the envy of most of the world’s economies.

Sadly, the true motives of some in Mr Trump’s camp are even uglier. He and his ideological allies have been quite explicit: upon regaining power, they intend to corrupt the legal system to use the state against political opponents. Some American elites support this autocratic agenda because in such a Trumpist regime they expect to be the new oligarchs. Others fear that opposing Mr Trump will bring retaliation, so seek safety by pledging loyalty.

Most conventionally, of course, there is the simple siren promise of a second Trump term’s lower corporate-tax rates and softer regulatory enforcement. But it’s all penny-wise at best, when stacked against the likelihood of, say, Justice, State and Defence Departments purged and restaffed with MAGA cronies, loyal not to the USA but to DJT .

There is a historical pattern to the collapse of the rule of law in advanced countries: it happens when powerful groups naively judge that a strongman will stay contained. Today’s pro-Trump business elites are making the same crucial mistake as any other influential group choosing to empower an autocrat. To paraphrase Tim Snyder, a Yale historian: “He is not your strongman—he is his own strongman.”

Mr Trump’s felony convictions in the Stormy Daniels election-interference case, and the subsequent Republican attack on the American judicial system, have clarified this election’s epochal stakes: the systemic rule of law versus the capricious rule of a strongman.

America’s rules-based system, with its stability and continuity, has delivered enormous gains to the country—and to humanity. America saw its first peaceful transfer of political power in 1801. This proud tradition went unbroken until the Capitol attack of January 6th 2021. And the man who broke with it, a criminal, is dead-set on scuttling the system that really did make America great.

When the courts go against him, as they so often have, Mr Trump claims—just like every other “wrongly” convicted felon—that the system is rigged. Meanwhile his lawyers have argued at the Supreme Court that as president he should be permitted any use of state violence. And Mr Trump’s party is now committed to delegitimising, rejecting and attacking juries, courts, elections and any other mechanisms that might hold the leader legally or electorally accountable. The danger speaks for itself.

In short, the rule of law is on the line in this election. Americans who prize respect for the law, stability and prosperity—including even business leaders who might value the last of these most highly—should take Mr Trump literally and seriously, and do everything they can to prevent his return to the White House. ■

Reid Hoffman is a tech entrepreneur, investor, philanthropist and co-founder of LinkedIn. He provided third-party financial support for E. Jean Carroll’s civil lawsuits, which led to two unanimous guilty verdicts against Donald Trump.

By Invitation June 8th 2024

• Yuval Noah Harari on how to prevent a new age of imperialism

From the June 8th 2024 edition

Discover stories from this section and more in the list of contents

More from By Invitation

Vladimir Putin’s war against Ukraine is part of his revolution against the West

He is leading Russia into a new phase of strategic confrontation, says Stephen Covington, a longtime NATO adviser

Ray Kurzweil on how AI will transform the physical world

The changes will be particularly profound in energy, manufacturing and medicine, says the futurist

What good are whizzy new drugs if the world can’t afford them?

Bringing gene therapies and obesity drugs to the masses will require financial innovation too, says Steven Pearson

Why political centrists must rediscover their passion

They need to be clear about what opposing populism does and doesn’t mean, argues Yair Zivan

Digital finance is a money-launderer’s dream, argues an author

Curbing dirty money will require both governments and techies to be less dogmatic, says Geoff White

A whack-a-mole approach to big tech won’t do, says Europe’s antitrust chief

Margrethe Vestager insists that openness need not come at the expense of security

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

How New York’s Congestion Pricing System Could Have Been Saved

By Nicole Gelinas

Ms. Gelinas is a contributing editor for the Manhattan Institute’s City Journal. Her forthcoming book is “Movement: New York’s Long War to Take Back Its Streets From the Car.”

New York State’s congestion pricing program was once a promising method of charging drivers to use Manhattan’s most crowded streets. The abrupt announcement on Wednesday by Gov. Kathy Hochul to “indefinitely pause” the program may spell its permanent end, and not just for New York. The unfortunate decision may also harm other American cities ’ efforts to similarly control traffic.

It didn’t have to be this way. The state and city can salvage something from this failure by heeding the right lesson: stop trying to do the right thing the wrong way.

The concept of congestion pricing, under which car drivers in Manhattan would have to pay $15 (more for truck drivers) to enter the zone south of 60th Street, is sound. It was first proposed by the Lindsay administration more than a half-century ago, and now street space is even scarcer, as the city has repurposed much of it for walkers and cyclists.

Driving into or around dense Manhattan is the least efficient way of getting around. In 2019, New York’s last normal pre-Covid year, just 24 percent of the nearly 3.9 million people who came to core Manhattan each day came via car or truck, according to the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council ; almost everyone else took mass transit. Car drivers impose a burden on the city, in collision danger, congestion (buses stall behind cars), noise and pollution. Congestion pricing would charge drivers for the inconvenience they cause.

Yet economic principle is not the same as gritty New York reality. The governor’s inept halt to the program offers a civics lesson: New York’s transit advocacy community, which long fought for congestion pricing, could not overlay a sound idea onto a dysfunctional state government whose elected officials flout good-government practices, focusing instead on short-term exigencies and ignoring key details of complex proposals.

There’s also a limit to how much experimentation a city can withstand when residents and commuters feel increasingly fearful and anxious on the public subways and streets that congestion pricing was supposed to improve.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

Forgot Your Password?

New to The Nation ? Subscribe

Print subscriber? Activate your online access

Current Issue

Books & the Arts

The Myths of Anne Carson The Myths of Anne Carson

Throughout her long and prolific career, Carson has specialized in unexpected juxtapositions between modern life and ancient times, contemporary art and the literature of the…

Books & the Arts / Emily Wilson

The Enigma of Frantz Fanon The Enigma of Frantz Fanon

A revolutionary and an intellectual, a nationalist and a cosmopolitan, a doctor and a revolutionary, Fanon was always multiple.

Books & the Arts / Ken Chen

Philip Glass, Solo Artist Philip Glass, Solo Artist

In his most recent album, the composer marks a new turn in his style.

Books & the Arts / Bijan Stephen

The Many Worlds of HBO’s “The Sympathizer” The Many Worlds of HBO’s “The Sympathizer”

The adaptation of Viet Thanh Nguyen’s novel is a study of migration—between identities and countries and also between different historical periods and genres.

Books & the Arts / Jorge Cotte

From the Magazine

Who Is In Charge in the Biden White House? Who Is In Charge in the Biden White House?

In The Last Politician, Franklin Foer offers a portrait of an administration at odds with itself. 

Books & the Arts / Osita Nwanevu

Nell Irvin Painter’s Chronicles of Freedom Nell Irvin Painter’s Chronicles of Freedom

A new career-spanning book offers a portrait of Painter’s career as a historian, essayist, and most recently visual artist.

Books & the Arts / Elias Rodriques

A Left Between Victory and Defeat A Left Between Victory and Defeat

How can the left escape burning out?

Books & the Arts / Sam Adler-Bell

Literary Criticism

Isabella Hammad’s Novel of Art and Exile in Palestine Isabella Hammad’s Novel of Art and Exile in Palestine

Enter the Ghost looks at a group of Palestinians who try to put on a production of Hamlet in the occupied West Bank. 

Books & the Arts / Raja Shehadeh

The Magic of Reading Bernard Malamud The Magic of Reading Bernard Malamud

His work, unlike that of Bellow or Roth, focused on the lives of often impoverished Jews in Brooklyn and the Bronx and bestowed on them a literary magic.

Books & the Arts / Vivian Gornick

Lauren Oyler and the Critic in the Internet Age Lauren Oyler and the Critic in the Internet Age

In No Judgment, the novelist and critic explores the perilous activity of literary criticism in the era of social media.

Books & the Arts / Alana Pockros

History & Politics

What Happened to the Democratic Majority? What Happened to the Democratic Majority?

Today the march of class dealignment feels like an inexorable fact of American political life. But is it?

Books & the Arts / Matthew Karp

Sara Ahmed and the Joys of Killjoy Feminism Sara Ahmed and the Joys of Killjoy Feminism

To be a feminist killjoy means celebrating a different kind of joy, the joy that comes from doing critical damage to what damages so much of the world.

Books & the Arts / Judith Butler

How Did Joe Biden’s Foreign Policy Go So Off Course? How Did Joe Biden’s Foreign Policy Go So Off Course?

The president set out to chart a more pacific and humane foreign policy after the Trump years but at some point he and his team of advisers lost the plot.

Books & the Arts / David Klion

Get the Best of Books & the Arts in Your Inbox

Mondays . A bi-weekly collection of the best of The Nation ’s Books & the Arts section.

By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation ’s journalism. You may unsubscribe or adjust your preferences at any time. You can read our Privacy Policy here.

Art & Architecture

How Did Americans Come to Love “Mid-Century Modern”? How Did Americans Come to Love “Mid-Century Modern”?

Solving the riddle of America’s obsession with postwar design and furniture.

Books & the Arts / Marianela D’Aprile

Isaac Julien’s Truth Isaac Julien’s Truth

Dealing with time, race, and utopias, his work challenges conventional notions of where film belongs and should be consumed.

Books & the Arts / Barry Schwabsky

What Happened to the 21st-Century City? What Happened to the 21st-Century City?

And how we can save it.

Books & the Arts / Kate Wagner

Film & Television

The Genius of Nuri Bilge Ceylan The Genius of Nuri Bilge Ceylan

About Dry Grasses is long, dense, elliptical—and brilliant.

Books & the Arts / A. S. Hamrah

The Only Relationship That Matters in “Challengers” The Only Relationship That Matters in “Challengers”

What truly matters in Luca Guadagnino’s sexed-up tennis thriller is not the love triangle at its center but all the details that surround it.

Books & the Arts / Erin Schwartz

The Unanswered Questions of “True Detective” The Unanswered Questions of “True Detective”

Like a Raymond Chandler detective story, Night Country ultimately wants to turn its audience’s attention away from the mysteries of the dead toward those of the living.

Latest in Books & the Arts

Christopher Bollen’s Cairo Thriller Christopher Bollen’s Cairo Thriller

The Lost Americans captures the atmosphere of paranoia and surveillance in the years since 2013.

Jun 20, 2024 / Books & the Arts / Hussein Omar

Who Really Suffers When the Supply Chain Is in Crisis? Who Really Suffers When the Supply Chain Is in Crisis?

Peter S. Goodman’s recent book on the pandemic’s effect on global rhythms of supply and demand tries to answer why “the world ran out of everything.”

Jun 18, 2024 / Books & the Arts / Brett Christophers

Diane Oliver’s Fiction From Both Sides of the Color Line Diane Oliver’s Fiction From Both Sides of the Color Line

Neighbors and Other Stories, a posthumously released collection, looks at all the uncertainty and promise of coming of age during and after the civil rights era.

Jun 17, 2024 / Books & the Arts / Kelton Ellis

The Inhuman Gaze of “Evil Does Not Exist” The Inhuman Gaze of “Evil Does Not Exist”

Ryusuke Hamaguchi’s new film, an eco-thriller set in a sylvan Japanese town, explores the messy entanglements of human, machine, and nature that make up planetary existence.

Jun 13, 2024 / Books & the Arts / Phoebe Chen

A Sweeping History of the Black Working Class A Sweeping History of the Black Working Class

By focusing on the Black working class and its long history, Blair LM Kelley’s book, Black Folk, helps tell the larger story of American democracy over the past two and a half cen…

Jun 12, 2024 / Books & the Arts / Robert Greene II

Seeing Ourselves in Joni Mitchell Seeing Ourselves in Joni Mitchell

Ann Powers’s deeply personal biography of Joni Mitchell looks at how a generation of listeners came to identify with the folk singer’s intimate songs.

Jun 11, 2024 / Books & the Arts / David Hajdu