Thankfully the 2024 election cycle is over and the presidential race is not being decided in the courts. But being over does not mean there aren’t things to do. In fact, it is the perfect time to fix some things while they are fresh in our minds. Campaign finance reform should be one of them.
According to Forbes, the 2024 election will go down as the most expensive in U.S. history, with a projected $15.9billion in spending across all federal races; presidential, the House and the Senate.
At the center of it all is a record-setting presidential race. Kamala Harris’ campaign committee and outside PACs raised $1.6 billion, compared to Trump’s $1.1 billion. While the final numbers are not all in, their combined $2.7 billion already beats the $2 billion raised for Trump and Biden in 2020 and dwarfs the $1.2 billion raised in 2016 for Trump and Clinton.
Among other big doners, Harris was backed by Michael Bloomberg and Bill Gates who each contributed $50 million in support of her campaign. Trump received nearly a quarter of a billion dollars from just two backers, Timonthy Mellon and Elon Musk, who pumped millions into pro-Trump PACs.
But the 2024 campaign is not unique. Going back to 2020, Forbes analyzed the top 20 contributors and found they spent a total of $2.3 billion in contributions.
What are they spending the money on? According to AdImpact, the total bill for ad spending in the 2024 election hit almost $11 billion, a new record and $2 billion more than in 2020. You remember the almost continuous flow of campaign ads that we got so sick of watching we almost wore out the mute button on our TV remotes.
That whole campaign finance gig just has a really bad smell. It’s influence buying on steroids. The whole contribution concept of operations does not represent the general public, it has become a contest within a contest to see which candidate can sell their soul to the highest bidding billionaires. Shame on us.
THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION is supposed to be in charge of all this.
“The FEC is an independent agency of the United States government that enforces the Federal Election Campaign Act, 1971 which covers U.S. campaign finance laws and oversees U.S. federal elections. It is led by six commissioners who are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate.” First question, if FEC members are nominated by the serving president how, if they are all of one party, do they function as an “independent agency” without some bias?
The commission describes its duties as, “to disclose campaign finance information, to enforce the provisions of the law such as the limits and prohibitions on contributions, and to oversee the public funding of Presidential elections.”
Under the Federal Election Campaign Act, in place for 2023 and 2024, an individual can donate to more than one candidate (for president, House and Senate) in both the primary and general elections. The limit is $3,300 to each candidate in each election.
How then did billionaire Michael Bloomberg get $50 million into the Harris campaign? The short answer is through a PAC.
POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEES, PAC
A PAC is typically organized for the purpose of raising money to either elect or defeat a political candidate or ballot issue.
Every PAC is required to register with the Federal Elections Committee within ten days of its formation.
There are three main types of PACS.
One, Separate Segregated Funds, SSF, is a PAC organized by a corporation, labor union, membership organization or trade association. This kind of PAC can solicit money only from those connected with the association that sponsors it.
Two, a Nonconnected PAC is independent of the above organizations, and therefore permitted to solicit donations from the public.
Three, Super PACs may solicit and accept unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations, labor organizations and other PACs. They may not accept contributions from foreign nationals, federal contractors, national banks or federally chartered corporations. Super PACS can use their contributions to bankroll independent expenditures and political activity.
WHY PACs?
PACs are not an essential part of our important election process. We can do without them.
There is certainly a downside to the overall election process that contains a provision for, “unlimited contributions.”
What do we lose if we just rely on contributions from individual U.S. voter-eligible citizens? Nothing important. There will certainly be less TV advertising.
CHANGE THE LAW
Campaign financing for all federal candidates (president, House, Senate) should consist of one, and only one, source and that source is the voter who is geographically associated with the candidate. for example, any legally registered voter may donate to a presidential candidate; any registered voter in a state may contribute to their U.S. senatorial candidates; and any registered voter in a congressional district may contribute to their House of Representative contest.
During the 2023-2024 two-year election cycle the limit for contributions by individuals to federal candidates for President, the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives was increased to $3,300 per election per candidate. That is, $3,300 to a candidate for President, the House and Senate for a total of $9,900 for the primary election and $9,900 for the general election. Anyone found to have contributed more than these limits will be guilty of a federal offence and subject to a fine and/or imprisonment.
HOW TO POLICE THE CONTRIBUTION SYSTEM
Concurrently, every federal candidate must scrupulously and continuously account for every campaign expenditure. For every national election, the federal election commission could have temporary auditors operating in all 435 congressional districts and they will have open access to every candidate’s campaign finance records. The FEC auditors, operating in each congressional district, will also audit senatorial and presidential campaigns. FEC auditors will, throughout the campaign, audit candidates’ books with the objective of aligning contributions and expenditures.
Candidates are to file periodic reports that disclose the total amount of all the campaign contributions they receive, along with the identity, address and occupation of any donor who contributes more than $200 during the campaign period.
How can the FEC accountants, in each of the 435 Districts, monitor individual contribution input from the voters and identify the voters who are exceeding the contribution limits and thereby identify the candidates who are accepting those too-large contributions? One way is to identify every contribution with the voters’ Voter ID number. I know, Voter ID is not yet a reality but it is the solution to many other potentially fraudulent actions throughout the election cycle.
If Voter ID can become a reality, the auditors will immediately know that the contributor is a citizen and an eligible voter. With contributions sorted by Voter ID numbers they can immediately know if the total contributions have exceeded the legal limit to any one candidate during the primary/general election cycles.
During each calendar year of a national election, the FEC could create some number of panels consisting of five retired federal judges for each panel. All accounting irregularities will be immediately referred to a FEC panel of judges. If the panel finds conclusive evidence of gross campaign finance irregularities, the candidate could be subject to being disqualified by the FEC. That regulation alone, will encourage accurate and legal reporting into the election system.
CONCLUSIONS
The election process should lead us to the best qualified person being elected, as opposed to ending up with the best fund raiser.
The Federal Election Commission cannot provide effective oversight when forced to deal with an “unlimited contributions” provision leading to multi-billion-dollar campaigns.
Super PACs are for the most part uncontrolled. Analysis of the use of Super PAC contributions reveals that it is primarily used for negative campaigning. “The role that super PACs often play is to do the dirty work for a campaign,” said Chris Karpowitz, co-director of the Center for the Study of Elections and Democracy at Brigham Young University. When name-calling and character assassination become the dominant message, the American people tune out and probably gain a healthy disrespect for both candidates.
BOTTOM LINE
There is little goodness in multi-billion-dollar political campaigning. It’s not hard to fix it so it should become one of President Trump’s 100-day initiatives while it is all fresh in our minds.
Marvin L. Covault, Lt Gen US Army, retired, is the author of two books, Vision to Execution and Fix the Systems, Transform America as well as the author of a blog, WeThePeopleSpeaking.com.