The Washington Post’s recent series on campaign finance, beginning with the frighteningly titled “How billionaires took over American politics,” offers a dramatic narrative about money in politics. Unfortunately, the initial article predictably misunderstands campaign finance law and misrepresents the actual data regarding political spending.
As someone who has spent decades studying and implementing campaign finance law, including serving as the chairman of the Federal Election Commission (FEC), I believe readers deserve a more accurate picture. This includes recognizing the reality that, whatever one thinks of campaign finance regulations, such regulations are inherently restrictions on free political speech.
The Buckley Decision, Not Citizens United, Freed Individual Spending
The Post’s article, like many discussions of campaign finance, conflates the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision with the ability of wealthy individuals to spend unlimited amounts on politics. This is simply wrong. In 1976, Buckley v. Valeo established the right of individuals – billionaires or otherwise – to spend unlimited sums to support or oppose candidates, not Citizens United.
Citizens United addressed corporate and union spending, not individual spending. Thus, when the Post quotes voters complaining about Citizens United “freeing billionaires to spend,” it willfully and strategically perpetuates a fundamental misunderstanding in an attempt to demonize Citizens United.
It’s also worth noting that the Buckley Court explicitly rejected the idea that money could be restricted to “level the playing field” or equalize political influence. In a 7-1 decision, the Court explained that “the concept that government may restrict the speech of some elements of our society in order to enhance the relative voice of others is wholly foreign to the First Amendment.”
Indeed, one might even say that preventing the government from placing such a “finger on the scale” of public discourse is the primary reason the First Amendment applies to political speech. The only judicially recognized, constitutionally permissible reason for campaign finance restrictions is to prevent quid pro quo corruption or its appearance. And there is no evidence that Citizens United has increased political corruption.
Corporate Spending Remains Minimal
The Post article also conflates individual spending with corporate spending, creating an impression that corporations are drowning out other voices. The facts tell a different story. In the election cycles since Citizens United, publicly traded corporate spending has comprised approximately 2% of total political spending. The vast majority of political contributions still come from individuals, not corporations.
The Post omits this crucial information. When discussing the influence of “billionaires,” the article fails to distinguish between individuals spending their personal wealth and corporations deploying funds. These are fundamentally different activities with different legal frameworks and different impacts on the political system.
Context Matters: Comparing Influence
The Post notes that the wealthiest 100 Americans now cover about 7.5% of federal election costs, up from 0.25% in 2000. First, while this increase is notable, its necessary corollary is that 92.5% of political spending still comes from other sources. Second, the article fails to mention that this same period saw an explosion in small-dollar fundraising through online platforms, dramatically expanding political participation.
Third, and perhaps most importantly, the evidence shows that increased political spending has actually corresponded with higher, not lower, voter turnout. The 2020 election had both the highest turnout on record and the highest independent spending ever recorded. Academic research consistently finds that campaign spending increases voter knowledge and helps citizens identify candidate positions on issues. As political scientists John Coleman and Paul Manna found, campaign spending facilitates more informed democratic participation.
Moreover, the article’s focus on campaign contributions ignores other forms of political influence. The Washington Post itself is owned by billionaire Jeff Bezos, giving him a platform to influence millions of readers daily. The Post’s series so far conveniently omits discussion of the impact of that type of influence, much less of Bezos himself. Such influence is entirely unaffected by campaign finance laws (correctly, I might add).
Other billionaires own major media outlets, fund think tanks, and support advocacy organizations. Singling out campaign contributions as uniquely problematic seems arbitrary when these other forms of influence may be far more significant.
And as for corporations? Fortune 500 corporations routinely spend ten times as much money on lobbying as on campaign activity.
Political Dynamism Since Citizens United
Perhaps most importantly, the Post’s narrative of billionaire domination doesn’t align with recent political history. Since Citizens United, we’ve seen remarkable political dynamism: the reelection of Barack Obama over business favorite Mitt Romney; Donald Trump’s victory over establishment figure Hillary Clinton; and the defeats of well-funded incumbents like Eric Cantor and Joe Crowley by poorly-funded “outsider” challengers. In fact, the first five election cycles since Citizens United saw an average of 79 freshmen members of Congress, compared to just 55 in the five cycles prior to the decision.
If billionaires were truly “buying elections,” would we see such volatility? Would establishment candidates with massive funding advantages regularly lose to insurgents? The evidence suggests that, while money matters in politics, it cannot simply purchase electoral outcomes.
As Professor Jeff Milyo of the University of Missouri notes, there is “something of a scholarly consensus” that “elections are [not] essentially for sale to the highest bidder,” with “decades of social science research consistently reveal[ing] a far more limited role for campaign spending.”
The fact that the current state of play makes it easier for outsider candidates to compete might provide a clue as to why so many politicians and legacy media outlets are seemingly so invested in attacking Citizens United and free political speech generally.
Free Political Speech is Essential to Democracy
Yes, wealthy individuals have significant influence in our political system – as they always have. But that influence has limits, as demonstrated by recent electoral outcomes and the continued success of grassroots movements across the political spectrum.
For whatever “problems” one perceives the current American political system to have, the solution is not – and cannot be – restricting the core political speech that rests at the heart of the First Amendment.
Campaigns for office and the discussion of public affairs are at the core of the First Amendment. And such campaigns require money. No one would seriously suggest that government could evade the First Amendment right to practice religion by prohibiting the expenditure of money to build and maintain churches, publish bibles, pay pastors, or engage in missionary work; no one would suggest the Sixth Amendment right to counsel could be nixed by prohibiting a defendant from paying for the services of a lawyer; nor would anyone think the Second Amendment could be voided by the simple expedient of making it illegal to spend money to manufacture, ship, or purchase a handgun.
The First Amendment protects political speech precisely because it is the most important form of speech, intrinsically linked to the health of our republic and the democratic process. In our diverse democracy, more speech—not less—remains the best answer to speech we dislike.
The Washington Post series may craft striking narratives about billionaire influence, but readers deserve the full story, complete with accurate legal history, comprehensive data, and recognition of the immense value of free political speech and the bust political competition that continues to define American democracy
Bradley A. Smith is Chairman of the Institute for Free Speech and former Chairman of the Federal Election Commission.