MONEY & MAGA

by  Jay R. Mandle

The Supreme Court’s 2010 decision, Citizens United v. The Federal Elections Commission, ushered in a torrent of political spending by the super-rich. That flood of money resulted from the Court’s ruling that limiting independent political expenditures violated the free speech content of the First Amendment to the Constitution. Independent political expenditures are those that support candidates but are not explicitly coordinated with electoral campaigns. 

The amount of political money involved is simply astounding. The top twenty-five Republican donors increased their combined spending from about $92 million in 2014 to almost $600 million in 2022. The biggest Democratic donors joined the parade. That party’s top twenty-five contributors provided about $160 million in 2014 compared to more than $400 million in 2022. These vast sums of money, deployed by a handful of extremely wealthy individuals, gave them the power to bias election outcomes.

Right-wing donors have used their power to transform the Republican party.  What was once a party open to concerns about climate change became a implacable obstacle to efforts to save the planet. Writing for the Brennan Center for Justice, Michael Waldman points out that “Before 2010 key Republican leaders backed climate change legislation. After the [Citizens United] ruling and the effective deregulation of campaign money, the GOP became the only conservative party in any major democracy to effectively deny the existence of [climate change].”

More broadly, the flood of Republican money played a causal role in creating the threat to representative government symbolized by Donald Trump. Hard-right Republicans such as Richard Uihlien ($80.7 million in 2022), Kenneth C. Griffin ($69 million), Jeffrey and Janine Yass ($47 million), and Timothy Mellon ($40 million) provided money that swamped anti-MAGA Republicans. The spending environment created by Citizens United empowered a Trump hegemony.

The fact is, however, that the Supreme Court’s laissez-faire approach to political spending and free speech, as articulated in Citizens United, is inconsistent with its own rulings on other provisions of the First Amendment. The Court has allowed restrictions on slanderous content in the press, it has permitted laws on how and when groups may peacefully assemble, and it has consented to rules that require individuals and groups to register as lobbyists before petitioning the government. 

The reason the Court has accepted these kinds of limitations on the First Amendment is clear. Rules are needed so that freedom can prevail. Without rules, powerful groups would be able to dictate the practice of religion; there would be no recourse for victims of media vendettas. Similarly, rules that govern the ability of demonstrators to peacefully assemble are important, and restrictions have to be in place if access to politicians is to be fairly allocated.

And so it should be with regard to speech. The defense of free speech is rooted in the assumption that society benefits most when political discussion is as wide-ranging as possible. It rejects the view that any minority – let alone the wealthiest minority – possesses a monopoly of wisdom concerning policy formation. Therefore it is assumed that what serves society best emerges when multiple policy alternatives can be considered. But by rendering restrictions s on political expenditures unconstitutional, the Court through Citizens United has permitted the voices of the rich to drown out the voices and ideas of almost everyone else.

What has become obvious since Citizens United is that the country needs exactly the opposite of what that Court decision has allowed to occur. To thrive as a self-governing population, the country will have get out from under the limited political agenda supported by the super-rich. Rules designed to achieve that objective are needed – rules that can tone down, but not eliminate, the voices of the most wealthy.

This is not the place to detail the specific content of the legislation that could achieve that goal. But whatever the details, it will have to contain two components: limits on the level of allowed political expenditures; and a public funding system that provides voice for those who otherwise cannot afford to be heard.

 ABOUT THE AUTHOR                                                                                     Jay Mandle is the Emerita W. Bradford Wiley Professor of Economics, Emeritus,at Colgate University. His many books include Change Elections to Change America: Democracy Matters Students In Action, and Creating Political Equality: Elections As a Public Good. Mandle’s regular monthly editorials, Money On My Mind, appear on the Democracy Matters website, and explore the role of private money in politics and other critical social issues.
The views expressed in Money On My Mind are those of the author, (not necessarily those of Democracy Matters, and are meant to stimulate discussion.