tag:theconversation.com,2011:/uk/topics/money-in-politics-27644/articlesMoney in politics – The Conversation2020-10-13T13:26:53Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1453812020-10-13T13:26:53Z2020-10-13T13:26:53ZElection 2020 sees record $11 billion in campaign spending, mostly from a handful of super-rich donors<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/362711/original/file-20201009-15-vop4b0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C6%2C4592%2C2912&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Money can't buy you love, but it may be able to buy you political influence.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/millions-of-dollars-in-front-of-the-american-flag-royalty-free-image/1195075730?adppopup=true">Marius Faust / EyeEm via Getty</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Total spending in the 2020 federal elections is projected to set a new record of <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2020/10/2020-election-to-near-11-billion-in-total-spending-smashing-records">almost US$11 billion by November</a>. </p>
<p>When adjusted for inflation, that’s over 50% higher than 2016 election spending. This year’s federal election spending – for the presidency, the Senate and the House of Representatives – is on track to be double what it was in 2008.</p>
<p>The surge in campaign spending is striking. But my research on <a href="https://www.law.columbia.edu/faculty/richard-briffault">campaign finance regulation</a> suggests the volume of election spending is not the main problem with the U.S. campaign finance system. </p>
<p>The real challenge for American democracy is where this money comes from.</p>
<h2>No public campaign funding</h2>
<p>American federal election campaigns are <a href="https://transition.fec.gov/pages/brochures/citizens.shtml#ie">entirely funded by private money</a>; most of it is provided by wealthy individual donors, political action committees and <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2020/10/2020-election-to-near-11-billion-in-total-spending-smashing-records">other interested organizations. Wealthy candidates also fund their own campaigns</a>.</p>
<p>The U.S. has a public funding <a href="https://www.fec.gov/introduction-campaign-finance/understanding-ways-support-federal-candidates/presidential-elections/public-funding-presidential-elections/">program for presidential elections, established in 1974</a>. For two decades it played an important role in campaigns.</p>
<p>But it provided candidates with limited funds and imposed very low spending limits. As the needs and costs of contemporary campaigns grew, the system collapsed. While still available, no major candidate has taken public funds in the <a href="https://shorensteincenter.org/can-taxpayer-money-save-presidential-campaigns/">last three presidential elections</a>. </p>
<p>When Joe Biden ran for the Democratic nomination in 1988, and again in 2008, he qualified for and accepted public funds, which <a href="https://www.fec.gov/data/candidate/P80000722/?cycle=1988&election_full=true">accounted for 22%</a> <a href="https://www.fec.gov/data/candidate/P80000722/?cycle=2008&election_full=true">and 14%</a>, respectively, of his campaign funds. </p>
<p>This year, as of Aug. 31, 2020, all of the <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/2020-presidential-race/joe-biden/candidate?id=N00001669">$531 million funding Joe Biden’s campaign</a> so far came from private funds, according to Open Secrets, a publicly available database that tracks campaign finance data. So did the <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/2020-presidential-race/joe-biden/candidate?id=N00001669">$476 million funding President Donald Trump’s reelection bid</a> so far. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/362720/original/file-20201009-15-1a40dhp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="DeJoy arrives speak in the House of Representatives wearing a USPS face mask" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/362720/original/file-20201009-15-1a40dhp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/362720/original/file-20201009-15-1a40dhp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/362720/original/file-20201009-15-1a40dhp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/362720/original/file-20201009-15-1a40dhp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/362720/original/file-20201009-15-1a40dhp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/362720/original/file-20201009-15-1a40dhp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/362720/original/file-20201009-15-1a40dhp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Postmaster General Louis DeJoy is a major Trump donor. In August he testified to Congress about his cutbacks to mail service.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/postmaster-general-louis-dejoy-arrives-to-testifiy-during-news-photo/1228194806?adppopup=true">Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images/Pool</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The one-thousandth of the 1%</h2>
<p>The private dollars that fuel U.S. elections come mostly from a tiny fraction of society. Critics of American inequality often talk about “the 1%” – but in campaign finance it is the 0.0001% who matter. </p>
<p>Federal law requires political campaigns, parties, PACs and outside groups to report the identities of <a href="https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/keeping-records/records-receipts/">donors who give at least $200</a>. </p>
<p>The September campaign finance filings – which cover contributions through the end of August – indicate that just 2.8 million people, or 0.86% of the U.S. population, had contributed $200 or more to this year’s federal elections. Yet collectively, these relatively high spenders had supplied almost 74% of all campaign funds. </p>
<p>That’s <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/donor-demographics?cycle=2020&display=A">almost $5 billion</a> given by a small fraction of Americans. An even smaller number – 44,000 people, or about one-hundredth of 1% of the United States’ 328 million people – have so far given $10,000 or more each to this election, adding up to nearly $2.3 billion. And 2,635 people or couples – less than one-thousandth of the U.S. population – together provided $1.4 billion, roughly <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/donor-demographics?cycle=2020&display=A">one-fifth of total campaign contributions reported as of late summer</a>. </p>
<p>These numbers reflect only publicly reported contributions. The rise of “<a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/dark-money">dark money groups</a>” – which spend to influence election outcomes but do not have to disclose their donors because they claim to be primarily nonelectoral – suggests even more campaign money is provided by <a href="https://www.issueone.org/dark-money/">a few elite donors</a>.</p>
<p>[<em>Deep knowledge, daily.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/the-daily-3?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=deepknowledge">Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter</a>.]</p>
<h2>The donor class</h2>
<p>America’s donor class is not representative of the broader community whose interests are at stake in an election. </p>
<p>Donors are older, whiter and wealthier than America as a whole, my analysis shows, and they hail disproportionately from certain places. So far this year, more <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/totals-by-state">money has come from Washington, D.C., than from 20 states combined</a>, and Joe Biden raised 10% of his money from just six zip codes – areas <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/2020-presidential-race/joe-biden/geography?id=N00001669">in Washington, D.C., New York City, a New York suburb and a suburb of Indianapolis</a>. </p>
<p>Certain industries, like <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/donodemorgraphics.php">finance, real estate, communications, law, health care, natural resources, oil and gas</a>, are also particularly big election spenders via both personal and PAC donations related to the industries. There is no formal tracking of these donors. </p>
<p>According to media reports and websites like Open Secrets, recent years have seen a <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/16/us/politics/campaign-finance-small-donors.html">striking increase in the number and importance of small donors</a>. This year, small donors account for <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2020/10/2020-election-to-near-11-billion-in-total-spending-smashing-records">about 22% of campaign fundraising, up from 14% in 2016</a>. </p>
<p>That’s a step in a more democratic direction. But big donors are still <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/22/politics/wealthy-republican-donors-fuel-cash-edge/index.html">pivotal to America’s campaign finance system</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/243561/original/file-20181101-83661-wg9uaq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/243561/original/file-20181101-83661-wg9uaq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/243561/original/file-20181101-83661-wg9uaq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=493&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/243561/original/file-20181101-83661-wg9uaq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=493&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/243561/original/file-20181101-83661-wg9uaq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=493&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/243561/original/file-20181101-83661-wg9uaq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=620&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/243561/original/file-20181101-83661-wg9uaq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=620&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/243561/original/file-20181101-83661-wg9uaq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=620&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">These demonstrators in 2016 wanted big money out of politics. This year’s campaign spending is 50% higher.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Campaign-2016-Why-It-Matters-Money-In-Politics/25f95e39fb1446a299105b879ace623d/11/0">AP/Ted S. Warren</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Impact on democracy</h2>
<p>Whoever wins in 2020 will be tasked with addressing the pandemic’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/trillions-in-coronavirus-spending-is-putting-aocs-favorite-economic-theory-to-the-test-143378">devastating economic</a> and public health harms. A host of other enormously consequential issues – from <a href="https://theconversation.com/smartphone-witnessing-becomes-synonymous-with-black-patriotism-after-george-floyds-death-142153">racial justice</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/migrant-caravans-restart-as-pandemic-deepens-the-humanitarian-crisis-at-the-us-mexico-border-146893">immigration</a> to trade, the environment and <a href="https://theconversation.com/trump-and-mcconnells-mostly-white-male-judges-buck-30-year-trend-of-increasing-diversity-on-the-courts-146828">the courts</a> – also hinge on the election outcome. </p>
<p>Having a small number of very wealthy individuals financing political candidates distorts the political process. This is less a classical quid pro quo – the exchange of campaign dollars for votes – than it is politicians’ reluctance to take positions that are at odds with the interests of their large donors. What gets on – or stays off – the legislative agenda can be driven by donor concerns. </p>
<p>Donor influence tends to be more significant for issues that get little media attention – who gets a specific tax break, for example, or qualifies for coronavirus relief – than for hot-button concerns like reproductive rights. But campaign money inevitably <a href="https://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/files/NTJ-business-lower-tax-rates.pdf">shapes government action and who benefits from it</a>, who is <a href="https://www.press.umich.edu/2454352/influence_of_campaign_contributions_in_state_legislatures">harmed and who is ignored</a>. </p>
<p>As <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/2003/02-1674">the Supreme Court explained</a> in sustaining the 2002 McCain-Feingold Act’s ban on “soft money” – donations that can affect an election without being expressly focused on the election – “The evidence connects soft money to manipulations of the legislative calendar, leading to Congress’s failure to enact, among other things, generic drug legislation, tort reform and tobacco legislation.” </p>
<p>In 2018, then-federal budget director and former congressman Mick Mulvaney <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/24/us/mulvaney-consumer-financial-protection-bureau.html">admitted as much with disarming candor</a>: “We had a hierarchy in my office in Congress. If you’re a lobbyist who never gave us money, I didn’t talk to you. If you’re a lobbyist who gave us money, I might talk to you.” </p>
<p>As the saying goes, he who pays the piper calls the tune. </p>
<p><em>A version of this story was <a href="https://theconversation.com/campaign-spending-isnt-the-problem-where-the-money-comes-from-is-104093">first published on Nov. 2, 2018</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/145381/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Richard Briffault has contributed to several Democratic congressional candidates during the current election cycle.</span></em></p>Some 44,000 people – about one-hundredth of 1% of the US population – have given $10,000 or more each to this election. So much money from so few donors inevitably distorts the political process.Richard Briffault, Joseph P. Chamberlain Professor of Legislation, Columbia UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1300422020-02-12T16:45:41Z2020-02-12T16:45:41ZWhen presidential campaigns end, what happens to the leftover money?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/315049/original/file-20200212-61917-12vak7b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Andrew Yang ended his campaign after the New Hampshire primary. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Election-2020-Andrew-Yang/a88836f153034250814698115fc2a624/14/0">AP Photo/Matt Rourke</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/11/us/politics/andrew-yang-drops-out.html">Andrew Yang</a> and <a href="https://www.npr.org/2020/02/11/756126032/colorado-sen-michael-bennet-ends-2020-democratic-presidential-campaign">Michael Bennet</a> have ended their campaigns for president.</p>
<p>What happens to the money they have raised, but not yet spent?</p>
<p>The amounts could be substantial. Financial reports submitted to the Federal Election Commission indicate that as of Dec. 31, 2019, candidates who had already dropped out still had plenty in the bank. Former Texas Congressman Beto O'Rourke <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/01/us/politics/beto-orourke-drops-out.html">dropped out Nov. 1</a>, but at year’s end still had US$360,000 in the bank. Sen. Kamala Harris, who <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/03/kamala-harris-drops-out-of-2020-presidential-race.html">dropped out Dec. 3</a>, reported having <a href="https://www.politico.com/2020-election/president/democratic-primary/candidates/fundraising-and-campaign-finance-tracker/">$1.3 million available</a>. </p>
<p>Other candidates who dropped out in January had large sums on hand not long before they ended their campaigns: <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/castro-drops-2020-presdiential-race/story?id=66774136">Julian Castro</a> had $950,000 on Dec. 31, and dropped out two days later. Less than two weeks before they exited, <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/01/10/election-2020-marianne-williamson-drops-out-presidential-race/2011312001/">Marianne Williamson</a> had $330,000 and <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/13/us/politics/cory-booker-drops-out.html">Sen. Cory Booker</a> had $4.2 million. </p>
<p>I <a href="https://www.law.columbia.edu/faculty/richard-briffault">teach and write</a> about campaign finance law. There is one clear rule about that money: Candidates <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30114">can’t use it for personal expenses</a>, like mortgage payments, groceries, clothing purchases or vacations. But there are a lot of other options, both within politics and outside of it.</p>
<h2>Paying what’s owed</h2>
<p>The first use for money from a candidate who has just quit the campaign is generally to pay the cost of winding things up. Just because someone announces they’re out, their expenses don’t stop right away. They may still owe rent on office space, as well as fees for services like polling and transportation and for staff salaries. </p>
<p>Some campaigns <a href="https://www.politico.com/states/florida/story/2016/03/grayson-desantis-among-us-senate-campaigns-with-most-debt-032665">max out their credit cards</a>, or <a href="https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/handling-loans-debts-and-advances/">take out loans</a> to fill their accounts, and those still need to be repaid. </p>
<p>Candidates whose campaigns have ended but who are still handling outstanding expenses need to keep <a href="https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/terminating-a-committee/">filing campaign finance reports</a> with the FEC. Once those expenses are paid, there may not be much left. </p>
<p>At times, candidates need to keep fundraising after they drop out, just to pay off the bills they ran up while running. Six months after they dropped out of the 2012 presidential nomination race, failed Republican candidates Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum were <a href="https://www.salon.com/2013/05/02/14_presidential_candidates_who_havent_paid_for_their_campaigns_partner/">still working to pay off their campaign debts</a>. Former presidential candidates Rudy Giuliani, Dennis Kucinich and John Edwards <a href="https://www.salon.com/2013/05/02/14_presidential_candidates_who_havent_paid_for_their_campaigns_partner/">took years to pay off</a> their campaign debts. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/313580/original/file-20200204-41554-12rstv0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/313580/original/file-20200204-41554-12rstv0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/313580/original/file-20200204-41554-12rstv0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/313580/original/file-20200204-41554-12rstv0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/313580/original/file-20200204-41554-12rstv0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/313580/original/file-20200204-41554-12rstv0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/313580/original/file-20200204-41554-12rstv0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/313580/original/file-20200204-41554-12rstv0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Cory Booker can use money left over from his presidential campaign to run for reelection to the Senate.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Election-2020-Cory-Booker/f7fd3e0517434f56805370d3f0619fd7/7/0">AP Photo/Patrick Semansky</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Saving for the future</h2>
<p>If there’s anything left over after all the bills are paid, the candidate has a few options. </p>
<p>For some politicians, the most likely use is to help pay for their next campaign. Booker, for instance, is up for reelection to his Senate seat. Once his presidential campaign has paid off any debts it may owe, he can <a href="https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/making-disbursements/transfers/">transfer the remaining money</a> to his senatorial reelection campaign fund.</p>
<p>If he, or any other candidate, wants to run for president again in the future, it’s easy enough to transfer the funds to a committee for the 2024 campaign season. </p>
<p>A former candidate can also use any excess funds to create a so-called “<a href="https://www.bnd.com/living/liv-columns-blogs/answer-man/article19572627.html">leadership PAC</a>,” which is a political committee that can be controlled by the former candidate but is not used to support that person’s campaigns. Instead, it backs a political agenda – including other candidates – the candidate supports. Leadership PACs have been criticized for functioning as “<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/09/25/leadership-pacs-are-campaign-finance-scandal/">slush funds</a>” for politicians to spend on <a href="https://www.rollcall.com/news/congress/new-members-meet-slush-fund">travel and entertainment</a> they can’t buy with regular campaign donations.</p>
<h2>Sharing the wealth</h2>
<p>Instead of using the money for the candidate’s own political purposes, people who drop out can donate their money to other campaigns or candidates. There are <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30114">no limits</a> on how much they can give to a national, state or local party committee – such as the Democratic National Committee. </p>
<p>They can also give money to <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30114">state and local candidates</a>, depending on state campaign finance laws, or <a href="https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/making-disbursements/making-contributions-other-candidates/">up to $2,000</a> to each of one or more candidates for federal office. </p>
<p>A former candidate can also <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30114">donate surplus funds to charity</a>. This seems most likely to occur when a candidate is retiring from public life. For instance, former Sen. Joseph Lieberman transferred funds from his Senate campaign fund and his leadership PAC to a <a href="https://www.rollcall.com/news/lieberman-gives-219k-to-scholarship-fund">college scholarship fund</a> for high school students from his state, Connecticut. He used other leftover campaign money to organize his political and campaign papers to <a href="https://ctmirror.org/2013/08/28/burnishing-his-legacy-lieberman-leave-his-official-papers-library-congress/">donate to the Library of Congress</a>. </p>
<p>A former candidate with excess funds has two more possibilities. She can do nothing at all and just keep the cash in the bank. In 2014, an analysis found ex-candidates, Republicans and Democrats alike, had <a href="https://publicintegrity.org/politics/nearly-100-million-in-campaign-cash-sits-idle/">as much as $100 million</a> in unused campaign funds just waiting for account holders to decide what to do.</p>
<p>If the person really doesn’t want all that cash on hand, the law is vague on what’s next – it can be used “<a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30114">for any other lawful purpose</a>,” besides personal use. For example, former Democratic Congressman Marty Meehan of Massachusetts <a href="https://publicintegrity.org/politics/nearly-100-million-in-campaign-cash-sits-idle/">helped fund a document archive</a> for his former colleague, Barney Frank.</p>
<p>[ <em>You’re smart and curious about the world. So are The Conversation’s authors and editors.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/weekly-highlights-61?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=weeklysmart">You can get our highlights each weekend</a>. ]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/130042/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Richard Briffault does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>When political campaigns end, candidates often are left with a fair amount of money. They have a lot of options about how to spend it.Richard Briffault, Joseph P. Chamberlain Professor of Legislation, Columbia UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1179452019-08-28T12:57:31Z2019-08-28T12:57:31ZYou’d be better off lighting your money on fire than giving it to a politician to spend on TV ads<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/288977/original/file-20190821-170914-nnm0r9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Hillary Clinton may have lost to Donald Trump because she bought the wrong kind of ads</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Campaign-2016-Debate/2915e066eb274b78bc2194d8b1058b50/5/1">AP/David Goldman</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Alright, you want to make this country a better place for yourself, your children and the many generations to come. So you make a donation to a political candidate you believe will fight for a better country.</p>
<p>But, in reality, you are wasting your money. Here’s why. </p>
<p>Television has long been the golden goose of political advertising. The conventional wisdom is that the candidate who can spend the most on it will most likely win. </p>
<p>With the exception of Donald Trump, almost every person elected president since 1960 has raised and spent <a href="http://metrocosm.com/2016-election-spending/">more money</a> than their opponent. That includes Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Clinton and Obama – with a significant amount of that money being used to buy expensive television advertisements.</p>
<p>In 2016, Hillary Clinton raised over US$1.1 billion, as opposed to Trump’s grand total of less than <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-fundraising/">$650 million</a>. She outspent Trump almost <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/clinton-maintains-nearly-3-1-ad-spending-edge-n672766">three times over</a> on television advertising.</p>
<p>So how is it that a presidential candidate won with less money raised and spent?</p>
<h2>Spending where it counts</h2>
<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/upshot/measuring-donald-trumps-mammoth-advantage-in-free-media.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0">Some</a> have attributed this to free media Trump received from television networks hungry for ratings. But, in many ways, that argument doesn’t hold water, so consider a different answer: digital advertising. </p>
<p>While he was outspent on TV, Trump spent <a href="https://adage.com/article/campaign-trail/trump-spent-online-ads-clinton-june/305184">four times</a> the amount Hillary Clinton did on digital ads, which are any ad on a computer rather than the typical campaign ads on TV, mail or billboards.</p>
<p>Why would this be the answer?</p>
<p>As of 2016, a new era of politics has been established (arguably initiated by Obama in 2008), dominated by digital advertising. And no one has done it better than Donald Trump. </p>
<p><iframe id="fZD3T" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/fZD3T/1/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<h2>The wasted dollars of TV advertising</h2>
<p>A typical House candidate will spend 65% to 70% of their entire political budget on TV and U.S. mail advertising. </p>
<p>When one of them advertises on TV, <a href="https://www.adweek.com/tvspy/why-broadcast-tv-is-still-the-media-of-choice-for-political-ads/178953/">almost 80% of the money spent</a> on the ads is spent broadcasting those ads to people who don’t vote or live in that candidate’s district. That’s because TV does not allow you to target your audience to the same precise level as digital can. This is true from major metro TV markets to rural states. </p>
<p>So if you give to a political campaign, then over 50% of your money is
being spent on TV ads that do not reach people who can vote for your candidate. </p>
<p>What’s more, if you take into account what is spent on further advertising, it turns out that for every dollar you give, only 10 cents actually goes to engaging voters.</p>
<p>In effect, television advertising is the worst thing you can support in terms of impact for your money.</p>
<p>But, if you give to campaigns, both district-level and presidential, that advertise digitally, it is an entirely different story. </p>
<p><iframe id="ujbHx" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/ujbHx/3/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<h2>Digital advertising targets better</h2>
<p>When politicians advertise digitally, their advertising can get smarter and more targeted. That’s because the digital advertising acquires more information on individuals and better learns what policies and causes the donor cares about. </p>
<p>For example, much of Donald Trump’s current Facebook advertising doesn’t even ask for money, it asks for information about you, such as which issues you are interested in and whether you favor building ‘The Wall.’ Here’s a screenshot: </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/281849/original/file-20190628-94692-agu7zk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/281849/original/file-20190628-94692-agu7zk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=780&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/281849/original/file-20190628-94692-agu7zk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=780&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/281849/original/file-20190628-94692-agu7zk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=780&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/281849/original/file-20190628-94692-agu7zk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=980&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/281849/original/file-20190628-94692-agu7zk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=980&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/281849/original/file-20190628-94692-agu7zk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=980&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Screenshot from Trump campaign Facebook advertisement.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Facebook</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>And here are screenshots from a campaign website that the Facebook ad takes you to, which includes an “Official Secure The Border Survey.”</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/281848/original/file-20190628-94688-obzdwn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/281848/original/file-20190628-94688-obzdwn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=583&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/281848/original/file-20190628-94688-obzdwn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=583&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/281848/original/file-20190628-94688-obzdwn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=583&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/281848/original/file-20190628-94688-obzdwn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=733&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/281848/original/file-20190628-94688-obzdwn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=733&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/281848/original/file-20190628-94688-obzdwn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=733&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/281849/original/file-20190628-94692-agu7zk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/281849/original/file-20190628-94692-agu7zk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=780&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/281849/original/file-20190628-94692-agu7zk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=780&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/281849/original/file-20190628-94692-agu7zk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=780&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/281849/original/file-20190628-94692-agu7zk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=980&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/281849/original/file-20190628-94692-agu7zk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=980&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/281849/original/file-20190628-94692-agu7zk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=980&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Screenshots, Trump campaign website.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Facebook</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Trump’s digital ads not only ask for your opinion on a variety of topics, they also assign you a survey number and ask for all the data necessary (name, email, ZIP code, phone number) to target you individually for future voting and fund raising. </p>
<p>This is even more valuable than the advertisement itself, because individuals can continually be targeted on topics they specifically care about. </p>
<p>Trump <a href="https://www.techforcampaigns.org/2018-political-digital-advertising-report">spent 44%</a> of his massive 2016 election media budget on digital advertising. Commercial companies spend 54% of their advertising budgets on digital advertising. But U.S. Senate campaigns only spent 4% to 7% on digital advertising in 2016. </p>
<p>Who do you think is spending more money on figuring out how people are responding to different forms of advertisement?</p>
<p>Now that he’s campaigning for re-election, President Trump is currently running thousands of ads per day on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/?active_status=active&ad_type=all&country=US&q=Donald%20J.%20Trump&view_all_page_id=153080620724">Facebook alone</a>. That’s consistently more than the 23 Democratic candidates challenging Trump combined. </p>
<p><iframe id="Uc5Vi" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/Uc5Vi/2/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>If this trend continues into the general election, it is pretty clear to me who most likely will win. </p>
<p>It seems that the winners will be those who use digital wisely – the losers will be the ones who stick with TV. </p>
<p>[ <em>Deep knowledge, daily.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=deepknowledge">Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter</a>. ]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/117945/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Liberty Vittert does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>TV has long been the golden goose of political advertising – the one who spends the most wins. That’s over, and it’s a new era of digital advertising. No one’s done it better than Donald Trump.Liberty Vittert, Professor of the Practice of Data Science, Washington University in St. LouisLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1214612019-08-05T14:02:28Z2019-08-05T14:02:28ZWhy new South African law won’t end the toxic mix of money and politics<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/286951/original/file-20190805-36390-hof6ek.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Cyril Ramaphosa led the African National Congress to victory in May. A new law on political funding covers parties, not politicians.
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA-EFE/Yeshiel Panchia</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The grip of money on South African politics may be so tight that it could be impossible to govern – or seek to govern – unless you are beholden to private money. </p>
<p>Can a new law change that?</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/201901/42188gon63politicalpartyfundingact6of2019.pdf">Political Party Funding Act</a> was signed into law by President Cyril Ramaphosa <a href="https://theconversation.com/south-africans-are-finally-set-to-know-who-funds-their-political-parties-110843">early this year</a>. It forces parties to disclose donations of R100 000 (US$6700) or more and sets up a <a href="http://www.casac.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Annexure-3.pdf">Multi-Party Democracy Fund</a> to which donors who want to support a range of parties can donate. </p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.elections.org.za/content/default.aspx">Independent Electoral Commission</a>, which will implement the law, decided that it would not come into force until <a href="https://www.gov.za/speeches/party-funding-act-5-mar-2019-0000">regulations</a> on how it will operate are drafted. It has now concluded hearing evidence from “interested parties” – mainly political parties and non-governmental organisations – on <a href="https://www.politicsweb.co.za/politics/conclusion-of-public-hearings-into-political-party">how to word the rules</a>.</p>
<p>Democracy campaigners have been pressing for this law for years. Until it was signed, South Africa had no laws governing <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-south-africas-new-political-party-funding-bill-is-good-news-for-democracy-99034">donations to parties</a>: the wealthy could give huge amounts to parties and were not obliged to reveal this.</p>
<h2>Toxic relationship</h2>
<p>In any democracy, such secrecy should trigger fears that government decisions will reflect not what voters want but what large donors require. In South Africa, the fear is particularly justified because the relationship between money and politics is close and toxic.</p>
<p>This is a product of the past and the transition to a new political order. Apartheid ensured that whites owned the large companies and so <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-south-africa-can-do-better-at-reversing-apartheids-legacies-116600">most of the wealth</a>. When black parties were allowed to <a href="https://www.sahistory.org.za/dated-event/fw-de-klerk-announces-release-nelson-mandela-and-unbans-political-organisations">operate freely from 1990</a>, their only source of significant money (apart from aid donors and government funding <a href="https://mg.co.za/article/2017-12-14-what-the-historic-party-funding-bill-means-for-sa-politics">from 1994</a>) was business. </p>
<p>This created huge openings for companies or their owners to <a href="https://theconversation.com/economic-exclusion-feeds-the-politics-of-patronage-in-south-africa-69996">buy cooperation</a>. The new law is meant to control this by forcing large donors to make their donations public. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/economic-exclusion-feeds-the-politics-of-patronage-in-south-africa-69996">Economic exclusion feeds the politics of patronage in South Africa</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The democracy fund may be partly inspired by corporations which donate openly to several parties as a social investment project. Public funding is allocated mainly in proportion to parties’ support at the last election, which favours big parties: the corporates use criteria which advantage smaller parties in the hope that this will “level the playing field”. The fund is meant to offer a larger vehicle for this democracy support.</p>
<p>Campaigners have welcomed the law as a step forward but are concerned that loopholes may make it possible to continue to buy party support: R100 000 is a generous ceiling. Ways are also needed to stop big donors giving multiple donations of just under R100 000 to circumvent the law; the Independent Electoral Commission was asked at the hearings to draft regulations to <a href="http://www.capetalk.co.za/articles/356635/cosatu-wants-r100k-political-party-donation-threshold-loophole-rescinded">curb this</a>.</p>
<p>They are right to be concerned about the limits of the law – but equally right to expect that, when it is enforced, voters will know more about who is funding parties, even though South Africa’s law offers less control than similar laws in some other democracies. But this may make little difference to the really toxic influence buying: the greatest threat to democracy is the money which buys politicians, not parties. And the law does not regulate this.</p>
<h2>Buying influence</h2>
<p>South Africa is trying to emerge from a decade in which private interests made deals with politicians and officials to make government work for them alone. The hearings of the commission of inquiry into <a href="https://www.sastatecapture.org.za/">“state capture”</a>, chaired by deputy chief justice Raymond Zondo, regale the country with evidence of abuse of public money and trust. </p>
<p>But party funding has been a minor player at the hearings – private interests mostly gained control of government by buying people, not parties. The much-reviled Gupta family, former President Jacob Zuma’s friends accused of having captured his administration for their own ends, did donate to parties. These <a href="https://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/Politics/Zille-explains-Gupta-donation-20130130">included</a> the official opposition, the DA. But, it allegedly gave far more to individuals.</p>
<p>Internal party elections are at least as much a problem as the national contest – black-owned companies in particular are repeatedly approached to fund contests for party office.</p>
<p>The problem has been emphasised by <a href="https://www.iol.co.za/news/politics/explosive-cr17-leak-hits-ramaphosa-30347834">“leaked” emails</a> from within Ramaphosa’s ANC Presidency campaign, which are currently receiving media coverage. Ramaphosa’s opponents say they show he misled Parliament when he told it he was unaware of a donation from a company named at the commission. Whether or not this is true, the emails show an attempt to <a href="https://city-press.news24.com/News/cyril-ramaphosas-r440m-presidential-price-tag-20190722">raise very large sums</a> from private donors whose identity was not revealed because the law does not require this.</p>
<h2>Murky links</h2>
<p>These links between politicians and money are another product of past inequities. In the early 1990s, anti-apartheid activists emerged as a government in waiting. But they had no money and could not afford the lifestyle which matched their future role. Businesses and business people – some to help, some because they wanted influence – provided them with houses, cars and other passports to the middle class. </p>
<p>At the same time, white-owned businesses recognised that they needed black partners; the only candidates they knew were the political activists who exhorted them to end racism – and so activism became a route to company boards.</p>
<p>The pattern this created survives today. Links between politicians and private money are murky and raise perpetual doubts about whether political decisions respond to voters or patrons.</p>
<p>So pervasive is this mix of private wealth and public office that it is open to question whether it is possible to achieve a senior position in government without being beholden to private donors. Ramaphosa is a wealthy man and so are some of his political allies. If they cannot run a campaign which does not rely on wads of money from people who are never voluntarily named, why believe that anyone else can?</p>
<p>If Ramaphosa’s campaign funding were to cost him his presidency, he would no doubt be replaced by someone else who received large donations about which voters know nothing. This would apply even if the replacement led an opposition party. </p>
<p>The two next biggest parties are the DA, which is <a href="https://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/political-party-funding-act-we-are-seeking-to-cure-what-is-being-exposed-before-the-zondo-commission-20190801">sceptical</a> of the Party Funding Act because it says its donors want anonymity to avoid reprisals. The other is the Economic Freedom Fighters, one of whose key funders owns a cigarette company which has been accused of improper <a href="https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2018-12-11-mazzottis-smoke-n-mirrors-a-matter-of-taxes-fraud-smuggling-and-cigarettes/">influence on the tax authorities</a>. </p>
<p>So, South African voters are likely to find that whoever governs them relies on donors whose names they do not know.</p>
<h2>Uphill battle</h2>
<p>The link to money will continue to damage South African politics unless the flow of undisclosed money to politicians ends. This depends far more on what parties do than on law. The ANC has told the Independent Electoral Commission it is determined to <a href="https://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/anc-on-party-funding-we-are-destroying-one-another-through-influence-of-money-20190802">find ways of fixing its problem</a>, but it faces an uphill battle. Other parties, including the DA and Inkatha Freedom Party, which are in government in provinces and municipalities, have yet to acknowledge that they have a problem.</p>
<p>Given all this, South Africans will not know soon who pays for the politicians who are meant to serve them.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/121461/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Steven Friedman 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.</span></em></p>Secrecy over who funds political parties should trigger fears that government decisions will reflect the wishes of large donors.Steven Friedman, Professor of Political Studies, University of JohannesburgLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1044522018-10-29T10:39:29Z2018-10-29T10:39:29ZMoney in elections doesn’t mean what you think it does<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/242489/original/file-20181026-7059-1vsmlw0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Money in politics? Somebody's got to pay for those signs.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/2016-Election-Florida-Voting/30ff377c698843de8319ffa28b590c51/144/0">AP/John Raoux</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Money is indispensable in American electoral campaigns. Without it, candidates cannot amplify their message to reach voters and it’s harder to motivate people to take interest and vote. </p>
<p>Nevertheless, a <a href="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/05/08/most-americans-want-to-limit-campaign-spending-say-big-donors-have-greater-political-influence/">May 2018 Pew survey</a> revealed a bipartisan 70 percent of respondents said individual and group spending in elections should be limited. </p>
<p>But does the American public understand the actual role played by campaign spending?</p>
<p>I’m a <a href="https://polisci.ufl.edu/suzanne-robbins/">political scientist who studies American politics</a>. Here are the answers to fundamental questions that voters should ask about the role of money in elections.</p>
<h2>How much do elections cost?</h2>
<p>Running for federal office is expensive. According the <a href="http://www.cfinst.org/pdf/federal/2016Report/CFIGuide_MoneyinFederalElections.pdf">Campaign Finance Institute</a>, the cost of winning a U.S. House seat in 2016 was over US$1.5 million. All told, approximately $816 million was spent by 723 major party candidates for the U.S. House. </p>
<p>The average amount a House candidate spent in 2016 was $1.2 million. However, there’s a lot of variation depending on what type of candidate you are. </p>
<p><iframe id="inHfG" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/inHfG/3/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>Republicans and incumbents, for example, spent more on average than challengers and those running in open-seat contests in 2016. In fact, the average challenger spent less than half a million dollars, or about one-fourth the amount an incumbent spent. </p>
<p>Those figures don’t include money spent by parties and outside entities to influence the election. Federal law dictates that groups, parties and individuals – including the groups known as <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/superpacs.php">super PACs</a> – can make what are called <a href="https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/making-disbursements-pac/independent-expenditures-nonconnected-pac/">“independent expenditures”</a> for or against a candidate, so long as they do not coordinate with the candidate. </p>
<p>Spending from the major parties and super PACs in House and Senate races more than tripled between 1998 to 2016, growing from $267 million to $978.6 million. </p>
<h2>Can money buy an election?</h2>
<p>Money is necessary for a candidate to be competitive, but it doesn’t ensure success. </p>
<p>A lack of money can eliminate less capable candidates, but having money does not guarantee that a particular candidate’s message will resonate with the voters. As Campaign Finance Institute researchers <a href="http://www.cfinst.org/Press/PReleases/18-03-08/CFI%E2%80%99s_GUIDE_TO_MONEY_IN_FEDERAL_ELECTIONS_%E2%80%93_2016_IN_HISTORICAL_CONTEXT.aspx">Michael Malbin and Brendan Glavin write</a>, “If voters do not like what they are hearing, telling them more of the same will not change their opinion.” </p>
<p>So how does money matter?</p>
<p>Money can affect which candidates run. Specifically, early money – or money raised before the primary – matters especially in this regard. </p>
<p>Candidates can prove their viability by raising significant sums before the first advertisements air. Landing some big donors before the first advertisements or primary allows candidates time to build campaign infrastructure. Insiders refer to this as the “invisible primary.” Media stories on the invisible primary for the 2020 presidential election are <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/386823-invisible-primary-has-already-begun-for-dems">well underway</a>. </p>
<p>Money matters more for challengers than it does for incumbents. Decades of political science research demonstrates that the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/08/upshot/a-campaign-dollars-power-is-more-valuable-to-a-challenger.html">more a challenger spends, the more likely he or she is to win</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/242482/original/file-20181026-7050-1cw4xk0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/242482/original/file-20181026-7050-1cw4xk0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/242482/original/file-20181026-7050-1cw4xk0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/242482/original/file-20181026-7050-1cw4xk0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/242482/original/file-20181026-7050-1cw4xk0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=495&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/242482/original/file-20181026-7050-1cw4xk0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=495&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/242482/original/file-20181026-7050-1cw4xk0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=495&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Money helps get citizens engaged in elections.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/hand-holding-white-loudspeaker-dollars-flying-382771240?src=8rDe_E4BPJZsKG_57JP1FA-1-7">Shutterstock/ImageFlow</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>That’s because incumbents have many advantages, not the least of which is name recognition and free media. So, challengers must spend more to overcome the obstacles they face, from name recognition to formidable incumbent war chests meant to scare off a challenger. Unfortunately for challengers, those barriers are high enough that they rarely raise enough money to compete.</p>
<p>Yet money does not guarantee a victory. Simply looking at the average <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/bigspenders.php?cycle=2016&display=A&sort=D&Memb=S">amount spent by winners and losers</a> obscures the fact that many races have no real competition. </p>
<p>In 2016, winning incumbents far outspent their challengers, but the winners in open seat contests spent nearly the same amount as their opponents, while those incumbents who lost outspent their winning opponents half of the time. </p>
<p><iframe id="He1Eq" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/He1Eq/5/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>In short, incumbents who spend more than their opponent in contested races are more likely to be the candidates who are vulnerable and lose. </p>
<h2>Does money buy influence?</h2>
<p>Money matters in the most competitive races, open seat races that have no incumbent and those with high profile candidates. More money will be spent by the candidates in these races, but also by those who would like to influence the outcome. </p>
<p>One concern that is often expressed is that winners answer to their donors and those organizations who support them. </p>
<p>Since 2010, the role of outside money, or money from super PACs and political nonprofits, has raised alarms <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/07/12/secret-money-funds-more-than-40-percent-outside-congressional-tv-ads-midterm-elections/777536002/">in the media</a> and from <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2018/10/in-tight-senate-races-dark-money-backs-dems-hammers-gop/">reform groups</a>. </p>
<p>Some assert that self-financed candidates or those candidates who can demonstrate widespread support from small donors can allay concerns about the potential influence of donors on candidates and elected officials.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/outvscand.php?cycle=2016">Center for Responsive Politics</a> notes that outside organizations alone have outspent more than two dozen candidates in the last three electoral cycles and are poised to outspend 27 so far in 2018. </p>
<p><iframe id="SfYcu" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/SfYcu/2/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>However, it’s not always clear how useful that spending is: The <a href="https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/bensmith/the-incredibly-dumb-political-spending-of-2012">2012</a> election provides many examples. </p>
<p>Billionaire Republican donor <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/sheldon-adelson-donor-republicans-219598">Sheldon Adelson backed a super PAC</a> supporting former House Speaker Newt Gingrich after Gingrich was no longer a viable presidential contender. It extended the Republican presidential primary at a time when Mitt Romney could have been raising money and consolidating support for the general election. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/koch-backed-political-network-built-to-shield-donors-raised-400-million-in-2012-elections/2014/01/05/9e7cfd9a-719b-11e3-9389-09ef9944065e_story.html?utm_term=.f1618de12dd4">libertarian, conservative PAC Americans for Prosperity</a>, founded by the Koch brothers, often ran ads at odds with the Republican message. Other outside groups poured money into races that simply were not winnable. </p>
<p>By 2016, it appears that super PACs were spending for more calculated effect, focusing on competitive races. In addition, much of that “outside money” comes from the super PACs associated with the two main parties. </p>
<p>For example, in <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/races/outside-spending?cycle=2016&id=CA07&spec=N">California’s 7th congressional district</a>, outside groups spent approximately $9.1 million, in roughly equal amounts between the incumbent, Democrat Ami Bera, and challenger, Republican Scott Jones. The vast majority (85.7 percent) of the outside spending came from party organizations – the National Republican Congressional Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Congressional Leadership Fund and House Majority PAC – not from interest groups. Bera won re-election with 51.2 percent of the vote. </p>
<p>Some candidates use their own money for their campaigns to avoid appearing indebted to donors. </p>
<p>For example, wealthy Florida Republican Gov. Rick Scott has given his current U.S. Senate campaign <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/races/candidates?cycle=2018&id=FLS1&spec=N">$38.9 million dollars – 71.3 percent of all funds raised</a>. </p>
<p>But self-funding does not resolve the democratic dilemma of responsiveness. </p>
<p>First, <a href="https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2014/11/6/1332017/-Self-Funded-Candidates-The-Track-Record">Daily Kos</a> found that most self-financed candidates lose – and the more they spend, the more likely they are to lose the election. Generally, the only exceptions are candidates like Rick Scott, who already hold elective office. </p>
<p>Second, this way of improving responsiveness is limited because it effectively precludes anyone but the wealthy from holding office.</p>
<p>Small donors seem like a democratic solution to wealthy donors dominating election giving. Several recent campaigns – Bernie Sanders, Rand Paul, Barack Obama and now Donald Trump – have created effective small-donor fundraising machines. </p>
<p>More small donors means <a href="http://prospect.org/article/small-donors-may-soon-be-only-way-fight-big-money">more widespread support, at least in theory</a>, but that theory has limitations. </p>
<p>Small donors are not yet giving enough to counter big money. <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/campaign-finance-fundraising-citizens-united/504425/">In fact, the share small donors contribute relative to big money is declining</a>. </p>
<p>Moreover, political science doesn’t yet know enough about who small donors are – whether they are economically representative of the U.S. as a whole or even if they are <a href="https://psmag.com/news/the-people-who-finance-political-campaigns">more ideologically motivated to give, contributing to polarization in politics</a>.</p>
<h2>What’s so good about money?</h2>
<p>Yes, incumbents can amass huge war chests to scare off opponents, and money can be most effective in competitive races. All that extra spending translates into additional advertising and get-out-the-vote efforts. </p>
<p>In the end, what does that mean? </p>
<p>It means more information about the candidates and issues for voters, increased interest in the campaign and increased voter turnout. </p>
<p>That’s good for democracy.</p>
<p>Focusing on the putative evils of money diminishes the importance of other things that may help or hinder a candidate. Other major elements that can influence the outcome of a campaign: candidates who face national political and economic tides and local political concerns; candidates who choose to challenge formidable incumbents; and many candidates who simply aren’t viable. </p>
<p>It’s easy to see a correlation between winning and fundraising because money flows to likely winners and competitive races. </p>
<p>But, as scholars like to say, correlation is not causation. In the world of politics and campaigns, money is meaningful. It just may not mean what, and as much as, most people think it means.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/104452/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Suzanne Robbins does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Is money the root of all evil in politics? It’s easy to see a correlation between winning and fundraising – money flows to likely winners and competitive races. But correlation is not causation.Suzanne Robbins, Assistant Professor of political science, University of FloridaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1020242018-08-23T16:26:57Z2018-08-23T16:26:57ZThere’s a dark history to the campaign finance laws Michael Cohen broke — and that should worry Trump<p>Politics usually takes a summer vacation in August. But not during the Trump administration. </p>
<p>On Aug. 21, Michael Cohen, who until recently was President Trump’s long-time personal lawyer, surrendered to federal prosecutors in Manhattan after months of <a href="https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/michael-cohen-pleads-guilty-manhattan-federal-court-eight-counts-including-criminal-tax">investigation into tax evasion</a> and other crimes dating back to 2011. </p>
<p>Cohen <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4779489-Cohen-Information.html#document/p1">pleaded guilty</a> to violating a variety of laws, including two United States campaign finance laws: a ban on corporate contributions to candidates for federal office and the limit on individual campaign contributions. </p>
<p>The charges could land Cohen up to 65 years in jail, but his deal with prosecutors is likely to knock his sentence down to about five years. It may also have serious repercussions for President Donald Trump. </p>
<h2>No corporate gifts</h2>
<p>The United States government first began regulating money in elections in 1907 with the <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30118">Tillman Act</a>, which today still bars corporations from donating to political candidates. </p>
<p>Cohen broke that law when he, according to the <a href="https://www.lawfareblog.com/document-michael-cohen-plea-agreement">criminal information</a> filed in court, “caused” American Media Inc. – owner of the tabloid National Inquirer – to pay former Playboy playmate Karen McDougal US$150,000 to stay quiet about her alleged affair with Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential race. </p>
<p>American Media Inc. also likely violated the Tillman Act with this payment, but prosecutors have not yet indicted individuals there. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233284/original/file-20180823-149493-2medwj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233284/original/file-20180823-149493-2medwj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/233284/original/file-20180823-149493-2medwj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/233284/original/file-20180823-149493-2medwj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/233284/original/file-20180823-149493-2medwj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/233284/original/file-20180823-149493-2medwj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/233284/original/file-20180823-149493-2medwj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Trump lawyer Michael Cohen surrendered to the FBI on Aug. 21, 2018.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/Kevin Hagen</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The Tillman Act was inspired by <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1474421">a 1904 election scandal</a> in which New York insurance companies secretly gave their policy holders’ money to the Republican Party to help Theodore Roosevelt get elected president.</p>
<p>After the news broke that illicit funds had helped finance his campaign, Roosevelt – by then the sitting president – <a href="https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CRECB-1905-pt1-v39/content-detail.html">addressed Congress</a>, decrying the dangers of corporate money in American democracy. </p>
<p>Calling for “vigorous measures,” Roosevelt said the nation must “protect the integrity of the elections of its own officials” because there was “no enemy of free government more dangerous and none so insidious” as corporate financing. </p>
<p>Congress eventually agreed with him. For the past century, the Tillman Act has banned corporations from influencing elections by directly donating to federal candidates like Donald Trump.</p>
<h2>Stormy Daniels and the $2,700 spending cap</h2>
<p>The second campaign finance law Cohen violated, <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30116">the individual contribution limit</a>, also emerged from political scandal – a pattern I’ve observed in my years <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=584767">studying U.S. campaign finance law</a>. </p>
<p>Since 1974 the United States has capped the amount a person can contribute to a presidential candidate in a single campaign. </p>
<p>When Cohen gave $130,000 to the adult film actress Stormy Daniels in October 2016 in exchange for her silence about an alleged affair with Trump, he exceeded the current $2,700 limit. </p>
<p>The money, which Cohen got from a fraudulently obtained home equity line of credit – a separate crime – is considered a campaign contribution because, as Cohen <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/michael-cohen-guilty-plea-says-payoffs-were-meant-to-influence-2016-election-in-court-today-2018-08-21/">recently told a federal judge in New York</a>, it was paid “for the principle purpose of influencing the election.” </p>
<p>The individual contribution limit traces back to Watergate. </p>
<p>President Richard Nixon’s Committee to Re-Elect the President – the campaign committee known as “CREEP” – <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2046832">used its money to pay</a> the Republican operatives who broke into the Democratic National Committee headquarters in the Watergate Building in Washington, D.C. during the 1972 presidential race. </p>
<p>CREEP had both illegal and legal campaign funds in its coffers. The illegal moneys included sizable gifts from donors who wanted Nixon to appoint them to coveted foreign ambassadorships, a practice known to both Republican and Democratic presidents. </p>
<p>The legal contributions to Nixon’s campaign included large contributions from wealthy donors who wanted to wield other forms of influence in the White House. </p>
<p>At the president’s instruction, his aides and friends <a href="https://www.publicintegrity.org/2011/11/10/7382/nixon-grand-jury-100000-cash-contributions-and-rewarding-donors-ambassadorships">solicited secret $100,000 donations</a> from such leaders of industry as billionaire Howard Hughes and agribusiness titan Dwayne Andreas. Sometimes the money was “contributed” to Nixon’s campaign in envelopes of cash delivered to the Oval Office.</p>
<p>After Watergate exposed these campaign practices, the public responded with revulsion. <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1593253">One out of every four letters sent to Congress</a> was from Americans demanding stronger rules governing money in politics. The response was the 1974 <a href="http://www.cfinst.org/law/federal.aspx">Federal Election Campaign Act</a>. </p>
<p>This bipartisan reform created the Federal Election Commission, which enforces campaign finance laws, and required federal candidates, political action committees, parties and independent political spenders to disclose their political spending. It also limited maximum individual campaign contributions to $1,000. </p>
<p>A <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Bipartisan_Campaign_Reform_Act">2002 bipartisan reform</a> of the act raised that amount to $2,000. In 2016 the contribution cap increased to $2,700 to account for inflation.</p>
<h2>What Cohen’s crimes mean for Trump</h2>
<p>Despite President Trump and his legal team’s claims to the contrary, <a href="https://billmoyers.com/story/violating-certain-campaign-finance-laws-criminal-offenses/">these two campaign finance violations are crimes</a>. </p>
<p>When he pleaded guilty, Cohen also <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/21/michael-cohen-testified-under-oath-that-donald-trump-directed-him-to-commit-a-crime-lawyer-says.html">testified under oath</a> that he committed the felonies “in coordination and at the direction of a candidate for federal office.”</p>
<p>If true, these admissions mean President Trump took part in Cohen’s crimes. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233285/original/file-20180823-149493-tdmb52.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233285/original/file-20180823-149493-tdmb52.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/233285/original/file-20180823-149493-tdmb52.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/233285/original/file-20180823-149493-tdmb52.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/233285/original/file-20180823-149493-tdmb52.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/233285/original/file-20180823-149493-tdmb52.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/233285/original/file-20180823-149493-tdmb52.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Based on Cohen’s testimony, Trump may be what’s called an ‘unindicted co-conspirator’ in his lawyer’s crimes.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Elizabeth Williams via AP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>So far, this is not new territory for the country. President Nixon was also found to be what’s called an “<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1974/06/07/archives/jury-named-nixon-a-coconspirator-but-didnt-indict-st-clair-confirms.html">unindicted co-conspirator</a>” in the Watergate cover-up, meaning he committed crimes but was not charged for them. </p>
<p>Nixon resigned from office <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2017/05/29/richard-nixon-was-not-impeached-despite-what-hillary-clinton-and-others-say/?utm_term=.892d0da94f19">before Congress could formally impeach him</a>. He was <a href="http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=4696">pardoned by President Gerald Ford</a>, so the Department of Justice never had to face the constitutional crisis of prosecuting a sitting president.</p>
<p>Both Trump and White House officials have <a href="https://www.axios.com/sarah-sanders-trump-cohen-manafort-daniels-payment-d85ebe25-8670-4102-874e-e9d3f7524021.html">repeatedly denied</a> responsibility for Cohen’s criminal acts. This leaves Special Counsel Robert Mueller and <a href="https://www.vox.com/2018/4/18/17252554/trump-cohen-new-york-state-laws">other prosecutors</a> in a quandary about how to proceed with these campaign finance violations. </p>
<p>Like Nixon, the president of the United States may now be an unindicted co-conspirator in felonies committed by his lawyer. But, so far, Trump shows no signs of resigning.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/102024/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ciara C Torres-Spelliscy has received funding from Public Citizen. She is affiliated with the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law. </span></em></p>Trump’s former personal lawyer broke two laws that control political spending, both passed after major election scandals. President Roosevelt survived his campaign’s misdeeds. Nixon did not.Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, Leroy Highbaugh Sr. Research Chair and Professor of Law, Stetson University Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/907252018-02-09T12:44:07Z2018-02-09T12:44:07ZMembers of Congress respond to more than money – sometimes<p>Does citizen activism really affect the actions of elected officials?</p>
<p>Despite the <a href="http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/D/bo27316263.html">ubiquitous role</a> of money in campaigns, <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1065912917749323">elections</a> and <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1532673X11416920">policymaking</a>, some citizens clearly still believe in the power of protest.</p>
<p>In the month of December 2017 alone, an organization called <a href="https://sites.google.com/view/crowdcountingconsortium/home">The Crowd Counting Consortium</a> “<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/01/25/in-december-thousand-of-americans-protested-against-the-tax-plan-for-daca-and-about-all-the-other-usual-suspects/?utm_term=.cac4dde30652">tallied 796 protests, demonstrations, strikes, marches, sit-ins and rallies</a>,” some of them featuring thousands of people, across the country. Over the past year, the offices of many members of Congress and other elected officials have been jammed with constituents voicing their opinions on the Affordable Care Act, the immigration program called DACA, abortion and sexual harassment, among others. </p>
<p>But does all of this sign waving and sitting in actually influence elected officials?</p>
<p>As social scientists, we have long been interested in <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=1XMWY78AAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">political participation</a> and <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1065912912436695">online activism</a>. We used this knowledge to design a study that looks at <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/representation-in-an-era-of-political-and-economic-inequality-how-and-when-citizen-engagement-matters/CBAC4BC7085D4DA96CFFEFACD14C1B64">whether activism changes the votes of elected officials</a> – and whether the effect is strong enough to mitigate the power of donated money. </p>
<p>What we found is that citizens can make their voices heard – at least some of the time.</p>
<h2>Activism, an American tradition</h2>
<p><a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11205-016-1364-8">Signing petitions, contacting officials and protesting</a> are potentially powerful because congressional elections occur only every other year, while representatives cast votes on important issues much more frequently.</p>
<p>The country’s founders believed deeply in the right of citizens to act on their political beliefs. They enshrined that right in the <a href="http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1.html">First Amendment</a>. </p>
<p>Protests – from the original Tea Party in 1773 to the 1960s civil rights marches to abortion clinic activists in recent years – offer dramatic examples of citizens making their voices heard. But protests are not the only way citizens communicate with elected officials. Americans also have a rich history of attending town halls, writing letters to elected officials and signing petitions. </p>
<p>Despite the variety of ways citizens can express what they want their elected officials to do, most citizens believe that politicians, and especially Congress, are <a href="http://www.apnorc.org/projects/Pages/HTML%20Reports/the-frustrated-public-americans-views-of-the-election-issue-brief.aspx">failing in their roles</a> as the public’s representatives. </p>
<p>Cynics, as well as <a href="https://press.princeton.edu/titles/10671.html">some</a> <a href="http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/D/bo27316263.html">scholars</a>, suggest that taking political action may be irrelevant or simply pales in comparison to the more powerful influence of money in politics. After <a href="https://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/a-guide-to-statistics-on-historical-trends-in-income-inequality">decades</a> of <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/892939587">increasing income inequality in the U.S.</a>, and growing amounts of special-interest money helping to fund election campaigns, a common finding in recent research is that elected officials respond to the opinions of <a href="https://press.princeton.edu/titles/10831.html">the wealthy more than to those of the poor</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/205335/original/file-20180207-74506-1q41iab.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/205335/original/file-20180207-74506-1q41iab.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=1205&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/205335/original/file-20180207-74506-1q41iab.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=1205&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/205335/original/file-20180207-74506-1q41iab.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=1205&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/205335/original/file-20180207-74506-1q41iab.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1514&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/205335/original/file-20180207-74506-1q41iab.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1514&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/205335/original/file-20180207-74506-1q41iab.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1514&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">America’s activist tradition: An 1871 petition to Congress requesting the right to vote for women.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">National Archives</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But other research suggests that <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2005.00357.x/abstract">members of Congress respond to more than just the power of money</a>. That research found that members of Congress respond more to voters in their districts than to nonvoters when making policy. Knowing that, it seemed reasonable to ask whether elected officials in Congress respond to political activism in the same way.</p>
<h2>Founders’ faith affirmed</h2>
<p>Our survey looked at four issues that were on the congressional agenda in 2012, a year for which good data is available. The issues were the repeal of the ACA, approval of the Keystone Pipeline XL, the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” which would allow gays to serve openly in the armed services, and approval of the Korean Free Trade Agreement, which would remove tariffs on trade between the U.S. and South Korea. We asked survey respondents what their preferred policy was and then compared that to votes their members of Congress cast. </p>
<p>On two of these issues, we found that elected leaders’ choices on roll call votes aligned better with voters in their districts compared to nonvoters. Those issues were the ACA and Keystone Pipeline. </p>
<p>For the ACA, activists and donors, especially activists and donors of the same party as their representative, also enjoyed greater similarity with their representatives than non-activists and non-donors. </p>
<p>For the Keystone Pipeline, donors were also better represented than non-donors. </p>
<p>So – especially for the ACA – activists were better represented by their elected officials than non-activists. </p>
<h2>Activism pays on high-profile issues</h2>
<p>These striking findings led us to another question: Was the power of activism strong enough to counter the influence of money?</p>
<p>Among voters who are not politically active in additional ways, we found that those who have the highest income are better represented than those with the least income. But activism changes this: When the poor become politically active in addition to voting, they are represented about the same as the wealthy.</p>
<p>This effect held true only for the ACA, not for the other issues we studied.</p>
<p>We believe that the effectiveness of activism directed toward House members is likely restricted to high-profile issues that are well-covered by the media, where partisan positions are strong and well-established and the issue itself is highly contentious to the public. In these circumstances, activist citizens can potentially have a stronger influence than the wealthy over the policies Congress produces.</p>
<p>Our findings lead us to two more observations. </p>
<p>First, activism may be more effective in competitive congressional districts, where elections are often won by small margins.</p>
<p>Voter turnout in these competitive districts is a common topic of discussion and it is often used as a political strategy to win the election. <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S000305541600006X">Political engagement beyond Election Day</a> is less discussed, yet perhaps just as important.</p>
<p>Second, in the House of Representatives, where many claim “all politics is local,” we expected to find that members are more responsive to citizen activism on a wider set of issues than the ACA. Perhaps this is true in state legislatures and city councils, where elected officials have smaller and often more homogeneous districts to represent, and where issues may not be so partisan.</p>
<p>In any case, the founders’ faith in the power of citizen activism has been borne out, at least partially. Elected officials do respond to citizens who do more than vote — and they also respond to those activists in a way that might well counter the advantages of the wealthy in American politics.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/90725/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Citizen activists can influence the policy positions of their elected representatives. Their activism might well counter the advantages of the wealthy in America.Jan Leighley, Professor of Government, American University School of Public AffairsJennifer Oser, Senior Lecturer of Politics and Government, Ben-Gurion University of the NegevLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/655592016-10-11T19:09:53Z2016-10-11T19:09:53ZUS election: what are super PACs, and what role does money play in the race?<p>Ask most people what they think of politics in the US, and one of the first responses you might hear is that it is corrupted by the influence of money.</p>
<p>Super PACs (political action committees) are a concept that has become synonymous with that corruption. Many see these entities as symbols of a broken system – a system with loopholes that allow organisations to lend support to particular candidates or parties.</p>
<p>As the rest of the world watches the circus that has been the 2016 US presidential campaign, questions about how the elections and candidates are being financed continue to be raised – both inside and outside the US. </p>
<h2>What are super PACs?</h2>
<p>The idea of a super PAC is quite simple. Anyone can set one up. And so long as they are not officially affiliated with any political party or candidate, these organisations can raise donations not subject to contribution limits. This is because they are a non-party group that does not give directly to candidates. </p>
<p>They can also spend without limits. This is because they are spending independently of parties or candidates, although what they are spending is in support of, or opposition to, a particular party or candidate. </p>
<p>In effect, what this means is wealthy individuals can peddle influence through these organisations. </p>
<p>Spending on political communications (attack ads on TV, for example) and political mobilisation (such as get-out-the-vote campaigns) is extremely powerful.</p>
<iframe title="New York Times Video - Embed Player" width="100%" height="321" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" allowfullscreen="true" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" id="nyt_video_player" src="https://static01.nyt.com/video/players/offsite/index.html?videoId=100000003778583"></iframe>
<h2>How has the 2016 election been financed?</h2>
<p>Democalypse 2016, as the Daily Show affectionately calls the 2016 presidential election, is a contest between <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/06/03/us/elections/trump-and-clinton-favorability.html?_r=0">two of the least-liked major party candidates</a> in decades of US elections. </p>
<p>Hillary Clinton is an establishment Democrat with decades of public service under her belt. She is pitted against Donald Trump, an egotistical billionaire who has never held public office.</p>
<p>Trump has focused on “Crooked Hillary” and her dubious sources of financing. This includes the <a href="http://nypost.com/2015/04/26/charity-watchdog-clinton-foundation-a-slush-fund/">Clinton Foundation</a> and her track record of “selling herself” to <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/us/politics/hillary-clinton-speeches-wikileaks.html">special interests</a>. However, it has recently been revealed that the Trump Foundation has been <a href="http://www.vox.com/2016/9/13/12888492/trump-foundation">allegedly misappropriating charitable contributions</a> to pay off debts and finance campaign costs.</p>
<p>When Trump was still only a contender for the Republican Party’s nomination, he frequently touted the fact that he was self-financing his campaign. This, he claimed, would make him less indebted to special interest groups (which, he implied, were the funders of other candidates – both Republican and Democrat).</p>
<p>This is a very different alternative to going down the super PAC route. What does self-financing actually means for the quality of democratic competition in the context of American, or indeed any, elections? </p>
<p>In 2012, the total cost of the election cycle in the US (both the presidential and congressional elections), was <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/03/the-2012-election-our-price-tag-fin/">at least US$6.3 billion</a>. The 2016 election season promises to be even more expensive. Any candidate who is going to be competitive in a race that costs more than $7 billion <a href="http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/02/economist-explains-4">needs to raise a lot of money</a>. Or, in Trump’s case, have a lot of money himself to finance his own race.</p>
<p>Neither option currently in play seems particularly appealing: super PACs and special interest groups that can raise and spend money with little oversight. Similarly, some candidates don’t need to rely on this because they can self-finance (the purview of the very few mega-rich).</p>
<h2>What are the rules governing super PACs?</h2>
<p>In recent years, the US has taken sometimes drastic measures to relax regulations around political financing. However, many – if not most – people fail to recognise that it still has a relatively tight set of laws governing who can give, who can spend, how much, and who needs to be told.</p>
<p>Over the past half a century, the regulation of political finance in the US has passed through three major waves of change. These have increasingly relaxed the regulations on party and candidate financing. </p>
<p>The most recent wave was sparked by the Supreme Court upholding the Citizens United <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZS.html">challenge</a> to the Federal Election Commission’s laws prohibiting corporations and labour unions from <a href="https://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/10/18/11527/citizens-united-decision-and-why-it-matters">engaging in independent spending</a> in elections. This decision ushered in super PACs.</p>
<p>Money is essential to the proper functioning of democracy and elections. However, the system of financing matters greatly to determine whether or not elections and the political system in general ensures equality of participation (both for political candidates and citizens), transparency and integrity. </p>
<p>However, it is not always the case that more regulation is better. Russia has some of the tightest political financing regulations in the world, but these have allowed Putin’s United Russia Party to <a href="https://theconversation.com/money-makes-world-of-politics-go-round-and-keeping-it-clean-isnt-simple-44888">entrench power</a>.</p>
<h2>How do we achieve a fair, democratic balance?</h2>
<p>Designing a “good” system of political financing will necessarily entail trade-offs between values such as individual freedom of expression, and equitable political competition. </p>
<p>The US is a perfect example of a country that emphasises individual freedoms above almost anything else. The advent of Super PACs and the influence they wield are a direct consequence of this priority, but in turn are the cause of inequitable political competition.</p>
<p>In considering the regulation of money in politics, perhaps most important is the notion that countries should <a href="http://carnegieendowment.org/files/Checkbook_Elections_brief.pdf">not rely on a single policy tool</a> to try to control money in politics. Also, the policy tools they do apply must be done in a consistent way that is enforced.</p>
<p>Since becoming the official Republican nominee, Trump has opened his arms and war-coffers to outside donations too. He has given up his “I’m a self-financed guy” mantle in order to become competitive in an election where his rival has to date <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-fundraising/">raised more than double</a> what he has (US$373 million versus US$165 million). </p>
<p>The one bit of good news in the midst of the obscene amounts of money being spent is that the US has relatively tight disclosure requirements. You can’t see necessarily who is donating to Super PACs per se. However, you can see exactly which super PACs are giving to which candidates and how much, with only a one-month delay on having this information publicly available.</p>
<p>Obviously, the American system is far from perfect. Yet Australians need to take a long hard look in the mirror before they pontificate over money in politics.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/65559/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrea Abel van Es 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.</span></em></p>As the rest of the world watches the circus that has been the 2016 US presidential campaign, questions about how the elections and candidates are being financed continue to be raised.Andrea Abel van Es, Research Fellow, Institute for Economics and Peace, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/650982016-09-12T06:19:49Z2016-09-12T06:19:49ZWhen political self-interest decides donations rules, what chance reform in the public interest?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/137305/original/image-20160912-13363-kek8i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Malcolm Turnbull has suggested the political donations issue is complex.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/Made Nagi</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Amid debate over Labor senator Sam Dastyari accepting A$1,600 from a Chinese company to <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-31/dastyari-says-he-was-wrong-to-let-china-linked-company-pay-bill/7800930">cover a travel bill</a>, Opposition Leader Bill Shorten last week <a href="https://theconversation.com/dastyari-resigns-but-will-labors-proposals-fix-the-political-donations-system-64966">put forward some proposals</a> to reform Australia’s federal political donations regime.</p>
<p>This was an attempt by Shorten to shift the spotlight from Dastyari’s indefensible conduct onto an issue he knew would capture the attention of the electorate and media. His proposals <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/labor-steps-up-pressure-on-malcolm-turnbull-over-foreign-political-donations-20160904-gr8drd.html">included the suggestion</a> that the disclosure threshold be lowered from A$13,200 to A$1,000.</p>
<p>But this does not go far enough. The matter that needs urgent attention – one Shorten did not advocate – is the cap that should be placed on all donations from corporations, trade unions, individuals and third-party entities.</p>
<p>A cap at $1,000 would tackle the issues of undue influence and policy capture that <a href="https://theconversation.com/no-bribes-please-were-corrupt-australians-59657">swirl around</a> the current donations regime. To ignore the need for a modest cap places personal and party interests before the public interest, yet again.</p>
<p>However, it was good to hear Shorten admit that much harsher penalties are needed for those who do not comply with political donation laws. This is particularly pleasing because for seven years Shorten <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/jul/08/bill-shorten-2007-donation-declaration-updated-within-last-144-hours">failed to declare some donations</a>, including $40,000 from a director of Unibuilt. This money was used to hire his campaign manager when Shorten first stood for parliament, and covered the period February to November 2007.</p>
<p>Shorten’s memory was only jogged a few days prior to his appearance before the trade union royal commission in July 2015. He suffered no penalty because of inadequate disclosure laws.</p>
<p>It will be interesting to see how harsh the penalties for non-compliance will be in the soon-to-be-introduced Labor bill on donations reform.</p>
<h2>But what about the government?</h2>
<p>Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/tony-abbott-speaks-out-on-donations-reform-challenges-turnbull-government-20160908-grbo4u.html">has suggested</a> the political donations issue is complex. In relation to third-party entities in particular, it is.</p>
<p>He has also indicated that the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters (JSCEM) should be asked to examine the issue. This is particularly worrying given the disregard the government showed for that <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House_of_Representatives_Committees?url=em/political%20funding/report.htm">committee’s 2011 report</a> and to the committee process more generally.</p>
<p>The JSCEM issued a 268-page report in 2011 that has proved to be a total waste of taxpayers’ money. Not one of its recommendations has been implemented. This is a disgraceful waste of what is akin to investment in research and development. If any private enterprise experienced the same return on its research and development budget, it would no longer exist.</p>
<p>The JSCEM saga gets worse on two fronts. The first refers to the government’s relatively recent reply to a JSCEM inquiry. The second concerns the committee’s chairpersonship.</p>
<p>The Senate <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Electoral_Matters/Political_Donations">referred an inquiry</a> into political donations to the JSCEM in October 2015. It was asked, among other things, to inquire into:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>How many of the recommendations made by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters in its 2011 report … into the funding of political parties and elections campaigns were accepted by government and how may have been implemented?</p>
<p>What factors, if any, are contributing to any delays in implementing the accepted recommendations of the report?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In light of this direction, the JSCEM wrote to the government in early December 2015 seeking a response. The government replied in the Speaker’s schedule of outstanding responses. It included the following:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… given the passage of time and the change of government, the government does not intend to respond to the report.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I have <a href="http://www.johncainfoundation.com.au/come-clean-stopping-the-arms-race-in-political-donations-by-dr-colleen-lewis/">written elsewhere</a> that “this is an unacceptable – some might think disgraceful – response to a key public policy matter”, particularly as political donations policy has the potential to affect most other public policy issues. </p>
<p>Regrettably, the JSCEM saga does not end there. In a little over a year <a href="http://www.johncainfoundation.com.au/come-clean-stopping-the-arms-race-in-political-donations-by-dr-colleen-lewis/">five different people</a> have chaired the committee, with some serving for only a matter of weeks.</p>
<p>This is an unacceptable approach to the formulation, implementation and evaluation of the federal political donations regime. It demonstrates the importance the government places on the committee’s workings.</p>
<p>At the time of writing, we are yet to learn who will chair the newly constituted JSCEM. It could well be a different person, which would bring the number of chairpersons, within a very short period, to six.</p>
<p>If the issues raised here signify the best Australia’s federal politicians can do to reform political donations, the public interest is in peril. The electorate and media need to maintain pressure for meaningful reform, and every reform politicians put forward needs to be motivated solely by the desire to enhance the public interest.</p>
<p>In any well-functioning democracy, the public interest must always take precedence over personal and party interests.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/65098/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span> Dr Colleen Lewis has been a Chief Investigator on two Australian Research Council Grants that examined parliaments and parliamentarians. She is a Director of the non-partisan Accountable Round Table and was commissioned earlier this year by the independent think tank, The John Cain Foundation, to write a paper on political donations. </span></em></p>Every reform politicians suggest for Australia’s political donations regime needs to be motivated solely by the desire to enhance the public interest.Colleen Lewis, Adjunct Professor, National Centre for Australian Studies, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/627372016-08-17T09:43:38Z2016-08-17T09:43:38ZAt the core of Hillary Clinton’s image problem is the family’s foundation<p>If Donald Trump has stunningly high disapproval ratings, Hillary Clinton <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/06/03/us/elections/trump-and-clinton-favorability.html?_r=0">isn’t far behind</a>. For all that this year’s presidential election was once supposed to be a coronation, it’s become clear that the electorate mistrusts the woman Donald Trump calls “<a href="https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/757777369272815617">Crooked Hillary</a>” – and that mistrust could yet derail an otherwise ideal opportunity to continue the Clinton dynasty. </p>
<p>Given her negative image, Clinton may struggle to capitalise on the even greater distrust and disapproval of Trump. An issue that has raised questions about Hillary’s credibility is the Clintons’ deep and enduring corporate financial connections. </p>
<p>According to a <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/clinton-money/">Washington Post investigation</a>, the Clintons’ political campaigns and charitable foundations, most notably the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, have received in the region of US$3 billion in donations over the past 40 years. A network of organisations and charities aiming to empower women and girls, assist economic development, and save lives, the foundation is estimated to have raised somewhere in the realm of US$2 billion dollars, about two-thirds of the Clintons’ four-decade fundraising haul. </p>
<p>This funding for “good causes” has been coming in <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/clinton-foundation-growth/">since 1997</a>, when Bill Clinton began fundraising to build the Clinton Presidential Center in Arkansas. Since then the foundation’s remit has widened to a host of initiatives, including the Clinton Global Initiative, among others. And the list of the Clintons’ philanthropic associations runs long.</p>
<p>The Clinton Foundation’s “strategic partners” include various <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2015/03/03/politics/clinton-foundation-bank-ties-donors-2016/">banks and financial institutions</a> – <a href="https://www.clintonfoundation.org/file/1366">Barclays</a>, <a href="https://www.db.com/usa/content/en/Chelsea-Clinton-on-Haitis-new-cholera-treatment-center.html">Deutsche Bank</a>, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/10/hillary-clinton-foundation-donors-hsbc-swiss-bank">HSBC</a> and Goldman Sachs among them.</p>
<h2>Pitching in</h2>
<p>The foundation’s actual practices in its work have come in for a lot of scrutiny. In particular, its apparent generosity in <a href="https://www.clintonfoundation.org/our-work/clinton-foundation-haiti">earthquake-hit Haiti</a> since 2010 was undermined by the saga of the temporary shelters it donated for use as school rooms and temporary housing. An <a href="https://www.thenation.com/article/shelters-clinton-built/">investigation by The Nation</a> found that temperatures in some of the shelters had reached over 100ºF (35ºC) and that some of the children who spent hours inside them suffered severe headaches and other illnesses. </p>
<p>The investigation also indicated high levels of formaldehyde, a known carcinogen (and, according to the US <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/">Centers for Disease Control and Prevention</a>, also a cause of asthma and other lung diseases) in one of 12 trailers tested. They were manufactured by <a href="http://www.claytonhomes.com/about-us.cfm">Clayton Homes</a>, which is being sued by the Federal Emergency Management Administration for having allegedly provided formaldehyde-laced trailers to <a href="http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/08/toxic_fema_katrina_trailers.html">victims of Hurricane Katrina</a>. </p>
<p>Clayton Homes is owned by Berkshire Hathaway, a holding company owned and controlled by billionaire Warren Buffett – an early and high-profile member of the Clinton Global Initiative and <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2014/12/04/politics/warren-buffet-hillary-clinton-super-pac/">longtime Clinton campaign donor</a>.</p>
<h2>Bad feeling</h2>
<p>So what political consequences might all this have for Clinton’s presidential bid? </p>
<p>It’s likely that allegations regarding the foundation may deter a proportion of Bernie Sanders’s supporters from voting for Clinton in November. Sanders himself has now endorsed Clinton, much to the chagrin of his more loyal voters, and he hasn’t focused too much on the Clinton Foundation. But when pressed in a <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/06/05/bernie_sanders_clinton_foundation_is_a_problem_took_money_from_dictatorships.html">CNN interview</a>, he did open up somewhat: “If you ask me about the Clinton Foundation, do I have a problem when a sitting secretary of state and a foundation run by her husband collects many millions of dollars from foreign governments, governments which are dictatorships … do I have a problem with that? Yeah I do.”</p>
<p>On the Clinton Foundation’s receipt of tens of millions of dollars from assorted foreign governments, including Saudi Arabia, he said: “You don’t have a lot of respect there for opposition points of view for gay rights, for women’s rights.”</p>
<p>An air of distrust has hung over the Clintons and their foundation from the very beginning. And heading into the general election, Hillary Clinton and her campaign may find it hard indeed to shake off.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/62737/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Inderjeet Parmar 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.</span></em></p>The Clintons have assembled a globally influential humanitarian behemoth. But is it just a colossal liability?Inderjeet Parmar, Professor in International Politics, City, University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/596572016-05-30T20:23:43Z2016-05-30T20:23:43ZNo bribes please, we’re corrupt Australians!<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/123302/original/image-20160520-4478-am7qpl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Australia’s two major political parties are highly dependent on contributions from business by the standards of other rich democracies.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Lukas Coch</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>Money makes the world of politics go around and, as recent scandals afflicting both major political parties have shown, keeping it clean isn’t easy. Our <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/political-finance-in-australia">series on Australia’s system of political finance</a> examines its regulation, operation and possible reforms.</em></p>
<hr>
<p>Attorney-General George Brandis <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/mar/04/public-submissions-open-on-proposed-national-anti-corruption-body">recently said</a> that federal public administration in Australia had been:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… remarkably free of corruption. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>In the narrow sense, Brandis is absolutely right. The purchase of policy in Australia is really, really difficult: Australian politicians and civil servants do not accept bribes. </p>
<p>International surveys bear this out. Australia may have <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-27/australia-perceived-as-more-corrupt/7118632">slipped a little</a> in Transparency International’s recent rankings, but it’s still near the top. And only very big changes in those numbers are likely to be both statistically and substantively significant.</p>
<p>Corruption is the abuse of the political system. Debates about corruption in Australia <a href="http://www.oup.com.au/titles/academic/social_science/politics/9780199665709">occur at cross-purposes</a> as commentators disagree on what is an abuse of the political system.</p>
<p>In recent decades, <a href="http://www.cambridge.org/ie/academic/subjects/economics/public-economics-and-public-policy/corruption-and-government-causes-consequences-and-reform-2nd-edition?format=PB&isbn=9781107441095">scholars have preferred</a> narrow legalistic definitions of corruption. However, restricting the ambit of corruption exposes a disconnect between legal standards and popular norms, and between the view of the political and business elite and the rest of society. </p>
<p>Australia’s political finance system is corrupt – but not because of bribery, or indeed any substantial quid pro quo. Here’s why.</p>
<h2>Why donate, if not to influence?</h2>
<p>By the standards of other rich democracies, Australia’s two major political parties are <a href="http://www.oup.com.au/titles/academic/social_science/politics/9780199665709">highly dependent</a> on contributions from business. If all this money isn’t buying policy, what’s going on? </p>
<p>On the Liberal Party side, much of it is <a href="http://doras.dcu.ie/608/">still ideological</a>. It gets a lot of <a href="http://doras.dcu.ie/18170/">business money</a>, whether it’s in government or not. These contributors are not trying to gain special access to the system – they believe in free markets and feel flush enough to spend a little money on the general business climate.</p>
<p>Some business donors are naïve. They think donations are legal bribery, but soon find out that politicians like elected office and will run away from anybody trying to make a direct connection between policy and political funding.</p>
<p>Savvy people know that the political finance system is not built on discrete exchanges like bribery. Reciprocal exchanges of money for future special consideration are the <a href="http://www.oup.com.au/titles/academic/social_science/politics/9780199665709">dominant rationale</a> for business donations to Australian politics.</p>
<p>The political reciprocation is unstated, uncertain and unlikely to be simultaneous with the financial contribution. Business money says, softly and subtly but insistently, that, in exchange for small but certain financial benefits, contributing businesses expect to receive special consideration when lobbying. </p>
<p>Regular donations, even small ones, cannot help but oblige a politician to the donor. The biggest donations are small in relation to the value of public decisions to businesses. </p>
<p>Sure, even through reciprocal exchange the chances of getting a decision that would not otherwise be taken are still pretty slim. Nonetheless, any real increase in the chances of winning big is worth it.</p>
<h2>Still an abuse</h2>
<p>The system of reciprocal exchange is an abuse of the political system, because it insinuates private interests where only the public interest should be considered. It is corrupt because government can end up producing private goods instead of public goods.</p>
<p>But this is not bribery. There is no quid pro quo. There is no direct connection and no price on political decisions. </p>
<p>A legalistic definition of corruption protects this corrupt system by exonerating reciprocal exchanges as uncorrupt. </p>
<p>It’s not just the definition that protects this type of corruption; it is the nature of the exchange. It is difficult to deny that reciprocal exchanges exist, but it’s more difficult to identify any particular reciprocal exchange.</p>
<p>Australians should be outraged at much of what is exposed by <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-05/icac-finds-eddie-obeid-and-joe-tripodi-corrupt/5502106">corruption commissions</a> and <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/interactive/2016/the-bribe-factory/day-1/getting-the-story.html">investigative journalism</a>, but they can rest easy that bribery is not widespread in their country. Nonetheless, Australia is exposed to the corrupting influence of business, perhaps more than in any other rich democracy except the US.</p>
<p>Opening up foundations that mask the identities of donors and their links to parties and politicians and maintaining vigilance against bribery will help. Taking business money out of politics would help a lot more.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>Catch up on other articles in the series <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/political-finance-in-australia">here</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/59657/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Iain McMenamin has received funding from Irish Research Council and has done volunteer work for Transparency International Ireland.</span></em></p>Australia’s political finance system is corrupt – but not because of bribery, or indeed any substantial quid pro quo.Iain McMenamin, Associate Professor of Politics, School of Law and Government, Dublin City UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.