This commentary is by Matt Dickinson and Hayden Dublois. Dickinson is a professor of political science at Middlebury College. He has written for US News, the Christian Science Monitor and Politico, and writes the Presidential Power blog. Dublois lives in Manchester, and is a political commentator and strategist who writes a biweekly op-ed column for the Manchester Journal. He is an economics student at Middlebury College and recent graduate of Burr and Burton Academy.
“A handful of billionaires own a significant part of the wealth of America and have enormous control over our economy. What the Supreme Court did in Citizens United is to say to these same billionaires: ‘You own and control the economy, you own Wall Street, you own the coal companies, you own the oil companies. Now, for a very small percentage of your wealth, we’re going to give you the opportunity to own the United States government.’ That is the essence of what Citizens United is all about – and that’s why it must be overturned.”
That sentiment, expressed by Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders at a Senate hearing in 2012, is one that has become a central and oft-repeated component of his current campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination. But while Sanders’ claim regarding the impact of Citizens United on campaign finance may resonate with his followers, not to mention a good deal of the media who write on the topic, research by political scientists on money and politics paints a decidedly different picture. What follows are five reasons why Sanders’ assessment regarding the impact of Citizens United and his understanding of campaign finance more generally is seriously misguided.
1. Citizens United didn’t change the rules as much as clarify them
One of the most frequent allegations made about the impact of Citizens United – one that is a cornerstone of Sanders’ campaign — is that it substantially changed the rules of the game as it pertains to campaign contributions. But this vastly overstates the impact of the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision to allow unions, corporations, and associations to spend unlimited amounts in elections provided that they don’t coordinate their efforts with candidates. Before the court’s ruling, any wealthy corporation or individual could contribute unlimited amounts to “527 groups,” nonprofit political groups which under IRS rules can raise unlimited funds from individuals, corporations or labor unions for political advocacy as long as they disclose their contributions and expenditures.
Some notable examples of groups that sponsor 527 chapters include the conservative Club for Growth and the liberal environmental group the Sierra Club. Prior to Citizens United, however, these groups couldn’t use these contributions to engage in express advocacy for a particular candidate. But this restriction did not prevent them from making their political preferences known. As a New York Times columnist writes, prior to Citizens United, “the Club for Growth couldn’t broadcast an ad that said ‘Vote Against Barack Obama,’ but it could spend that money on as many ads as it wanted that said ‘Barack Obama has ruined America — call and tell him to stop!'”
Thus, the main difference between pre-Citizens United 527s and post-Citizens United super PACs is that the former couldn’t specifically ask you to vote for a particular candidate. By removing that often-meaningless distinction, Citizens United is a welcome step toward reducing the uncertainty and hypocrisy associated with the previous era of campaign finance. But there is little evidence to date suggesting it has altered the rate at which money flows into electoral politics, and there even less evidence that Citizens United has opened the floodgates of corporate spending.
2. Parties are generally evenly matched in terms of resources
Even if money found its way to candidates prior to Citizens United — and continues to do so — Sanders would have one believe that the court’s ruling has tilted the playing field toward corporations and wealthy donors who use their money to influence election outcomes in favor of their ideological interests. As he puts it, because of Citizens United “the Koch brothers and other billionaire families are buying elections.”
People donate because they are asked, or they like the excitement of being part of a campaign or they share the candidate’s views. In short, for most donors, campaign contributions is a form of political participation, much like one spends money to root for a favorite sports team.
The truth, however, is that both ends of the political spectrum tend to be relatively evenly matched when it comes to election finances. For example, in 2012, overall spending on the Republican side by candidates, parties and outside groups including super PACs tallied about $1.2 billion (according to Open Secrets). While this may seem like a massive amount, the Democrats nearly matched them, with spending equaling just over $1.1 billion. Two years later, in the 2014 election, the Center for Responsive Politics estimates that about $1.75 billion was spent on Republican candidates, slightly more than the $1.64 billion spent on behalf of Democrats. Considering that there were significantly more Republican candidates in 2014 (since Republicans faced more primary challenges), both sides were fairly evenly matched in terms of financial resources.
Nor is there much evidence that either side is advantaged when it comes to the resources that money can purchase, such as media airtime. For example, in their careful study of the 2012 election, political scientists John Sides and Lynn Vavreck found a rough parity between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama when it came to advertising: “(A)cross all 210 media markets during the sixty-one days in June and July … Obama had a 2:1 advantage (or better) only 15% of the time and Romney had this advantage only 21% of the time … Large ad imbalances across long periods of time or across all markets were not that common and did not consistently favor either Obama or Romney.” At the presidential level, then, it is rare that one side has a substantial advantage in terms of financial resources. Outside presidential elections, if there is an advantage in terms of donations, it accrues to incumbents of both parties who find it easier to raise money than do challengers – an advantage that has benefitted Sanders in his recent Senate campaigns.
3. The fundamentals matter more than contributions
Because campaign expenditures in high-profile races, particularly presidential elections, tend to be evenly matched, the amount of money raised and spent on resources such as advertising or campaign infrastructure rarely determines the outcome. Indeed, in presidential contests, political scientists consistently find that the “fundamentals” – the state of the economy, whether or not the nation is at war, and the length of time the incumbent’s party has been in the White House – are the primary determinants of who wins the election.
In 2012, for example, looking only at the fundamentals, and paying no attention to campaign expenditures, Sides and Vavreck predicted that Obama would receive 52.9 percent of the major-party vote – only 1 percentage point more than the 51.9 percent of the major party-vote he actually received. More generally, in contrast to Sanders’ claim, research by political scientists indicates that campaign expenditures in high-profile races are rarely the determining factor in an election. This is because most voters start with an opinion about the candidates, especially the incumbent, and it proves very expensive to change their minds.
4. Political money is not an investment
So why bother contributing to a campaign, if the money is not likely to affect the outcome? Many critics of Citizens United share Sanders’ belief that political contributions are investments by donors who expect a political “return,” often in the form of a favorable policy. However, research on the connection between campaign contributions and legislative behavior to date largely fails to establish this link. Political scientists Stephen Ansolabehere, John M. de Figueiredo, and James M. Synder Jr. reviewed research intended to link roll call votes with campaign contributions. They concluded that “in three out of four instances, campaign contributions had no statistically significant effects on legislation or had the ‘wrong’ sign — suggesting that more contributions lead to less support.” They note that when controlling for other factors such as legislator party ID, “an additional $60,000 in corporate PAC contributions … changes the [legislator’s] voting score by at most 2 points on a scale of 0-100” — a very marginal amount.
Ansolabehere et al conclude that “the evidence that campaign contributions lead to a substantial influence on votes is rather thin. Legislators’ votes depend almost entirely on their own beliefs and the preferences of their voters and their party.” It is not surprising then that, by one estimate, in the 2012 Republican primaries — noted for its massive amount of super PAC funds — less than 14 percent of the total amount raised by super PACs came from corporations.
5. Contributions are a consumer good
If political contributions are not an investment for which a return is expected, then why do people contribute to campaigns? Ansolabehere et al believe it is “because of the consumption value associated with politics rather than because they receive direct private benefits.” People donate because they are asked, or they like the excitement of being part of a campaign or they share the candidate’s views. In short, for most donors, campaign contributions is a form of political participation, much like one spends money to root for a favorite sports team.
And, like the purchase of any consumptive good, political spending tends to track the overall size of the economy – when people have more money to spend due to economic growth and inflation, campaign donations will, in the aggregate, go up. Not surprisingly, given the recent economic downturn, the growth rate of total political spending on national races from 2008 to 2012 (two election cycles which bracketed the Citizens United decision) was about 19 percent, while the growth rate between 2004 and 2008 was a larger 26 percent.
To conclude, despite Sen. Sanders’ apocalyptic pronouncements, the evidence does not support his claims regarding the transformative and pernicious impact of Citizens United on campaign finance. But this does not mean we believe the current financing system is without flaws. In 2002 Congress passed and President George W. Bush signed into law the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act (BiCRA) which limited the ability of the national parties to raise and spend money outside of federal limits. That legislation did little to limit the flow of campaign money, but some political scientists believe it encouraged an increase in independent spending, thus reducing the ability of parties and their candidates to control what money was spent in their name. And, because those who raise and spend independent campaign funds tend to be the most ideological extreme, BiCRA may have contributed to the polarization of national politics.
If Sen. Sanders is truly worried about the impact of money on elections, he should spend less effort trying to repeal Citizens United and more on restoring the national parties’ ability raise funds from different factions and spend it on more moderate candidates. This would combat polarization, improve transparency and increase accountability – all objectives that we trust Sen. Sanders would support.
