Kayla Hansgen

POLS 1110
Spring Semester 2016 SLCC
The Influence of Campaign Finance on Congressional Elections

To win a seat in Congress, youll fall short if all you have is incredible political acumen
and a storied career full of success and triumph. Youll also need a lot of money now more than
ever before in the history of the US politics. In recent years, our political system has seen an
explosion of spending when it comes to the elections of federal officials vying for a seat in the
Senate or as a representative in the House. The amount of money needed to compete for and
successfully win a congressional seat is at a historic high. Coupled with recent Supreme Court
decisions that have done nothing but encourage special interest groups to pump money into an
already swollen campaign finance system, it doesnt appear that the trend will turn around
anytime soon indeed, this is something that we should all be worried about.
In modern day congressional election cycles, the amount of money that any given
candidate has at their disposal is the most indicative element of success in the campaign. Rather
than simply being a colloquial term, you truly must buy your seat. Looking back throughout
the history of campaign finance, it remains clear that the price of that seat has risen an exorbitant
amount. In 2012, candidates for the Senate spent over 10 million dollars on average to finance
their campaigns this proves to be a stark contrast with the 1986 average, which was 64% less
when adjusted for inflation (Steinhauser & Yoon, 2013). The rule remains the same for
incumbent Senators and new candidates alike regardless of political stature or experience, 82%
of the highest-earning candidates in each election cycle are elected. The parallel between a wellfunded campaign and a successful election is obvious in the House of Representatives as well,
with a stunning 94% of the highest-earning candidates winning their seat (Montanaro, Wellford
& Path, 2014).
While campaign finance is a crucial element for both House Representatives and Senators
alike, candidates vying for a seat within the Senate must prepare for a far more expensive
campaign cycle if they are determined to be successful. To successfully persuade your
constituents to vote for you, you must appeal to their interests. This is a far easier task, and

therefore less costly, when your group of constituents isnt very large or diverse. When you know
your voters well, like someone competing to represent a specific congressional district in the
House, youll likely need less resources in order to swing the votes in your favor. However,
candidates in the Senate must appeal to an entire states voting population perhaps an easy task
in culturally homogenous state like Utah, but one that could prove to be incredibly difficult in
large and diverse states like California or New York. The reality of our political system today is
that many of our elected officials, especially Senators and Representatives in the House, must
spend more of their time fundraising than working on meaningful legislation (Knowles, 2013).
Another unfortunate truth is that the fundraising never stops an incumbent is never guaranteed
re-election, especially if their primary challenger proves to be better prepared to take on the
financial demands of the campaign cycle.
When trying to understand the relationship between money and congressional elections,
the analysis must be approached from more than one angle. Although the need for money is
perpetuated by the resources a candidate must use to spread awareness and sway voters, the
inordinate amounts of money that we see contributed to these candidates can often be traced
back to a super PAC or a special interest group. Companies, nonprofit organizations, unions all
of these groups wish to have their own interests represented and spoken for in the legislation that
is passed through Congress. What better way to be sure that this happens than to make a
substantial donation to a congressional candidate who will in turn promise to protect your group
or organization by voting in allegiance with your interests? These organizations are as varied as
they are numerous as of 2014, there were more than 400 separate super PACs registered and
active (Frum, 2014). The financial incentive is almost impossible to ignore for the congressional
candidates, most of whom are in desperate need of money to keep their campaign hopes afloat.
With so much money at stake, a large contribution from a special interest group left on the table
could ruin a candidates chance at success.
Although it becomes easy to assume that an adjustment or two of the laws surrounding
campaign finance is all that would be necessary in order to return to more a more democratic
standard in all congressional elections, it is important to acknowledge that these changes have
been constant from the very beginning. In an attempt to establish better rules and regulations, the
Supreme Court has ruled over several cases that have usually substantially changed the campaign

finance climate. However, we have moved further away from an honest and fair structure with
every ruling that is passed. The history of legislation between the Supreme Court and campaign
finance is as complex as it is emotionally stirring we have spent many years trying to
determine what is right, but the law still doesnt seem to reflect what is fair.
Established in 1971, the Federal Election Campaign Act created the foundation for all
campaign finance legislation that would come to pass. Initially, the idea was to regulate the
disclosure of contributions to all candidates running in a federal election. The regulatory
umbrella was also to include money donated to a political party, in addition to monitoring the
activities of Political Action Committees (Gaughan, 2015). Unfortunately, there was one thing
missing a governing body that would be in charge of enforcing the rules. This oversight made
it almost impossible to maintain the order that the legislation hoped to establish. In 1974, an
amendment made it possible to launch the regulatory board necessary to enforce the rules.
Despite the honest intentions of those who acknowledged the importance of rigorous
enforcement, the purpose and framework of the principles set forth in these early pieces of
legislation have been largely compromised and weakened with rulings that would soon pass
within the Supreme Court.
Before the integrity of the campaign finance system began to collapse, there was a piece
of legislation in 2002 that further attempted to solidify the foundation that FECA had hoped to
put in place. It was called the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BRCA), and is sometimes
referred to as the McCain-Feingold Act in reference to the Senators that served as the bills main
sponsors. With the BRCA, it was hoped that the law would serve as the point of reference for
what soft money can be used for in a federal election. Money that falls under this category can
be defined as any contribution to a political party that is not to be used for any specific candidate.
Campaign finance law allows this kind of money to bypass the restrictive regulations that come
along with any donation that is meant for a specific federal candidates campaign (Provisions of
the BRCA, 2002). It is stated in the BRCA that soft money is not to be transferred to any
candidate in order to fund an electoral campaign, as the sole purpose of any soft money
contributions should be to carry out party-building initiatives. Another key provision of this
legislation is the rule that corporations and unions would not be allowed to broadcast influential

messages that could manipulate the image of a federal candidate regardless of whether the
manipulation was favorable or not.
Despite the well-intentioned framework that the aforementioned laws had tried to
establish, 2010 brought about a landmark decision that irreversibly reinvented the campaign
finance machine. The Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. FEC, named after the
conservative leaning non-profit organization who filed suit against the FEC, set the stage for the
financial chaos that has now become all too familiar in the world of campaign finance. The
ruling struck down most tenets of the BRCA in order to protect any corporation or unions rights
to donate unlimited amounts of money to support a federal candidate (SCOTUS Blog, nd). The
judgement was passed in lieu of the Courts assertion that it was unconstitutional to restrict an
organizations free speech by limiting the amount they contributed to these candidates. By
donating to super PACs and non-profits, corporations are able to circumvent the regulation and
restriction of their financial contributions in order to back the candidate of their choice with
unchecked enthusiasm. Coupled with the ruling in 2014 under McCutcheon v. FEC that
removes the limit on the aggregate of any individual citizens political contributions (Barnes,
2014), more money than ever before is being pumped into our already fractured political system.
It is no surprise that concern about campaign finance in America crosses party lines the
interrelation of political influence and campaign contributions may be murky for some, but it
remains extraordinarily apparent that there is more money than there ever has been in politics.
This kind of system will continue to promote legislative behavior that favors those with the
deepest pockets. Power and influence will continue to drain from the average American citizen
so long as money is allowed to pour in from the corporations and special interests of our society
after all, it would be almost impossible for the wallets of the American people to dwarf the
impact of these financial contributions. It is important to remember that the notion of a true
democracy will lie dormant as long as we continue to align our political system with the interests
of those that can dump the most money into it. The unfortunate reality is that our own legislative
system, through the high hand of the Supreme Court, is what continues to perpetuate the
unchecked corruption that has invaded the world of campaign finance in America and it is only
through their judgement that we could ever hope to repair the damage.

Works Cited
Barnes, Robert. "Supreme Court Strikes down Limits on Federal Campaign Donations." Washington
Post. The Washington Post, 2 Apr. 2014. Web. 12 Apr. 2016.
"Campaign Finance Law Quick Reference for Reporters." Major Provisions of the Bipartisan
Campaign Reform Act of 2002. Federal Election Commission, 2002. Web. 14 Apr. 2016.
"Citizens United v. FEC in Plain English." SCOTUSblog RSS. N.p., 22 Jan. 2010. Web. 12 Apr. 2016.
Frum, David. "Twilight of the Super PAC." The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 24 Feb. 2016. Web.
12 Apr. 2016.
Gaughan, Anthony J. "Our Campaign Finance Frankenstein." US News. U.S.News & World Report, 30
Oct. 2015. Web. 12 Apr. 2016.
Knowles, David. "Cost of U.S. Senate Seat: $10.5 Million." NY Daily News. N.p., 11 Mar. 2013. Web.
12 Apr. 2016.
Montanaro, Domenico, Rachel Wellford, and Simone Path. "Money Is Pretty Good Predictor of Who
Will Win Elections." PBS. PBS, 11 Nov. 2014. Web. 11 Apr. 2016.
Steinhauser, Paul, and Robert Yoon. "Cost to Win Congressional Election Skyrockets." CNN. Cable
News Network, 11 July 2013. Web. 11 Apr. 2016.