Money in Politics
A Letter From Iowan Charlotte Beyer Hubbell
Letters From Iowans is a part of the Iowa Writers’ Collaborative. We encourage you, our subscribers, to share your perspective in this column. To make your voice heard, use this form to send us your essay:
According to Mother Jones magazine, Donald Trump was Peter Thiel’s most successful investment after the 2016 election. However, Thiel became disillusioned with Trump during his presidency. Then in 2022, Thiel gave $15 million to a super PAC backing J.D. Vance’s bid for senator in Ohio. Thiel apparently smoothed over Vance’s previous slurs against Trump, so Trump picked Vance as his current running mate earlier this month. Thiel will now have access to the two most powerful men in the country. Gee, does that make Thiel an oligarch? And Thiel has publicly stated that freedom and democracy are not compatible. Does he think freedom and autocracy can stand together? I thought those were diametrically opposed ideas.
Money in politics is a long story that begins in 1971 with the establishment of the Federal Election Campaign Act, which limited the amount of money individuals could give to federal candidates and national political parties. It was assumed that corporations would never dare touch shareholder dividends to make political contributions. These limits were upheld in Buckley v. Valeo (yes, THAT Buckley, as in William F.) The court said the contribution limits imposed by the FECA were constitutional because the government had a compelling interest in preventing “corruption” and “the appearance of corruption.”
The, in 2010 the Supreme Court decided Citizens United vs. FEC, and, on a 5-4 vote, held that “First Amendment protection extends to corporations.” Since then, corporations, nonprofit organizations and labor unions have been able to contribute independent expenditures to campaigns and related PACs. But we all know unions are not flush with cash ever since the Court decided in Janus v. AFSCME (2018) that public sector unions cannot require nonunion employees to pay fees or dues as a condition of employment even though they reap the benefits of the contracts that unions bargain for with their employers. (The Janus decision affects more than 5 million public school teachers, first responders and government workers throughout the country.)
In 2014, another case was argued before the Supreme Court, McCutcheon v. FEC, and, once again on a 5-4 vote, the Court sided with large donor interests by rejecting aggregate limits on how much an individual can give to multiple federal candidates plus a national political party. Their decision did not affect limits on how much individuals can give to a politician’s political campaign which now stands at $3,300 per election (primary, general, and runoff).
Citizens United has often been credited for the creation of super PACs — political action committees that make no direct financial contributions to candidates or parties (unlike regular PACs) but can spend money on advertising and accept unlimited contributions from anyone or any entity.
Reading the Federal Election Commission rules on contributions to and disbursements from PACs, nonconnected PACs, connected PACs, Super PACs and Hybrid PACs is like being inside of a shell game. You rarely know where the money’s going to turn up.
Roberts originally wrote the opinion in Citizens United, but upon hearing from other conservative Justices on the court, he ordered a re-argument and expanded the scope of the decision, a highly unusual step for any court to do when they are charged with deciding a case on the facts presented to them.
Justice Kennedy wrote the new opinion in which the court struck down provisions of federal election law that restricted the amount and timing of corporate contributions to campaigns. Kennedy wrote, “The appearance of influence or access, furthermore, will not cause the electorate to lose faith in our democracy.” Really? J.D. Vance didn’t win his Ohio Senate seat because of the $15 million dollars given to his super PAC by Peter Thiel as well as other large contributions he received? (Something is rotten in the offices of some SCOTUS members.)
Justice Stevens dissented and wrote, “[the ruling] threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation. … A democracy cannot function effectively when its … members believe laws are being bought and sold.” He argued that the court had addressed questions not raised by the parties during trial, and that the majority “changed the case to give themselves an opportunity to change the law.”
You’d have to read the opinion to believe it, but, by overturning two previously decided cases that limited corporate contributions to political campaigns, it remains quite contrarian.
With Silicon Valley’s recent entry into the mega-dollar donors club, it looks like Justice Stevens was prescient. Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz are supporting Trump and Vance ”hugely,” perhaps because they expect beneficial cryptocurrency laws.
According to The Wall Street Journal, Elon Musk has recently pledged $45 million a month to Trump’s reelection campaign. Musk denies that’s true, but he has created America PAC with other multimillionaires or billionaires like Joe Lonsdale, the Winklevoss twins, and Kelly and Joe Craft who is CEO of the coal producer Alliance Resource Partners. (Hmmm, if Trump wins, do you see more coal plants in our future?)
While it is true that some corporations contribute to both parties, I personally believe the likelihood of abuse in our system of government is elevated with these mega-donations. Can anyone out there give our readers an example of a democracy where wealthy people can donate $45 million a month to a candidate? But the billionaire class was created by corporations and, as in Russia, their ties to the executive branch are problematic.
Until all these ridiculous cases that allow political offices to be bought by obscenely wealthy people are overturned, there will remain an appearance of impropriety, of suspicion that all is not as it seems, that all men are equal, but some men are more equal than others, to paraphrase George Orwell. Our current system of politics seems no place where a real democracy can survive.
If you wish to learn more about money in politics, go to opensecrets.org.
Charlotte Beyer Hubbell
Thanks, Charlotte. Citizens United opened a cesspool of cash. I remember when President Obama talked about that horrible ruling opening up the floodgates to special interest groups and foreign corporations to interfere with our elections in his State of the Union speech in 2010. The President got thunderous applause from the crowd while Alito sat in his seat and shook his head repeating “No, No, No”. Guess who was right - about all of it?!
People need to vote!!
Great letter.