The following is a transcript of this episode of E2024 On. All relevant links can be found below. 

Emerson Eby (E.E.): Politicians take large sums of money to finance their campaigns, but can they use these large sums of money to buy your vote?  

Hi, I’m Emerson Eby here for the Los Angeles Loyolan and E2024.  

From the local to the national level, campaign financing fuels our elections. Politicians need money for staff salaries, rent, travel, office equipment and advertising; they have to raise vast amounts of money — the 2020 election alone collectively cost $16.4 billion. This begs the question: Where is this money coming from?  

A candidate’s financing can come from a multitude of sources, including self-financing, donations from individuals and organizations, funding from their party, and political action committees (or PACs). Not all of these methods of funding are necessarily harmful. In fact, we have laws put in place to protect from corrupt campaign financing.  

The Federal Election Campaign Act (the FECA) sets limits for the amount groups and individuals can contribute, and requires candidates to report the names of those who contribute to their campaign, the amounts they receive and how they spend this money. 

On paper, this sounds great. But the FECA has some loopholes that candidates have learned to use to their advantage.  

The first problem is that money that doesn’t go directly to the candidate isn’t regulated. This has paved the way for PACs and Super PACs. PACs are organizations that can spend unlimited amounts of funds on election necessities on behalf of a candidate, such as campaign ads. Additionally, Super PACs can accept unlimited contributions from individuals and organizations— including unions and corporations. 

The second problem is that not every source of a candidate’s income is disclosed, which is called “dark money.”This is commonly accomplished when outside groups cover an expenditure related to the election. Outside groups, like the National Rifle Association, do not have to report their donors because they claim to work on behalf of issues and not specific candidates. Dark money makes it harder for regulators to determine whether there is a violation of campaign finance law, and it also makes it harder for the voter to know who is funding a candidate — in other words, which interests that candidate may be more responsive to.  

Clearly, campaign finance is a complicated topic, and it can be difficult to understand the conflicts that can arise from our system of financing. Luckily, we have an expert on the Bluff who was willing to help us.Dr. Richard Fox, associate chair of political science and international relations and recently appointed incoming dean of BCLA. 

The first thing we wanted to know: Can votes actually be bought with this money?  

Richard Fox (R.F.): All this money that’s raised — two-thirds of it is spent on advertising; that’s what it’s mostly being used for. Sell the candidate. Why people get re-elected at such high rates is more complicated. We don’t even know if these ads work very well. There’s not a lot of evidence that ads persuade people. Our public is less and less persuadable.  

It’s not a foregone conclusion that money wins you the race, and many times it does not. We shouldn’t be entirely disheartened that every member running is rich and they are going to win. There are many examples of that not happening, so it’s not really hopeless. 

(E.E.): But if money doesn’t win races, then why does the way our campaigns are financed matter?  

(R.F.): It undermines faith in the system. These are the cons, it’s a longer list. It undermines faith in the system. If you look at polls, most people think our system cares more about wealthy people and wealthy interests.   

We know from a lot of political science research that while maybe you can’t directly buy someone’s vote, here’s a [$100,000] for your campaign, you can buy access. Our members of Congress are more likely to meet with you if you give money, so you are in the room, at least, lobbying for your issue or your position. 

Wealthy donors have more money to give, so it feels like the process is pretty heavily skewed towards wealthy special interests. 

(E.E.): In a society where money equals access, it makes sense that every day voters are disillusioned with our system of campaign financing — but young voters can rally for change. We can look to other countries for ideas of reform. For example, in Canada, spending is limited instead of contributions. Such a system could help us to limit the amount of access that money can have over our candidates.  

Campaign finance reform is a tough issue to solve, because almost every candidate relies on this financing for their campaigns, but it is important to remember that you can use your vote to influence this system. Using the [Federal Election Commision’s] website, you can research where candidates are receiving their funding, which can help you to cast a more informed ballot. Utilizing this information is the first step we can take towards an election that focuses less on wealth and more on actual voters.  

If you would like more information about upcoming elections or other political issues, visit our website at https://www.laloyolan.com/e2024, or follow us on Instagram at @projecte2024. 

Project E2024 is co-production between The Los Angeles Loyolan and Project Citizen. Opinions and ideas expressed in this podcast are those of individual student content creators, and are not those of Loyola Marymount University, its Board of Trustees, or its student body. 

This episode was produced by Emerson Eby, Loyolan audio intern, with support from Loyolan E2024 intern Antoinette Damico and assistant director of Student Media Kevin O’Keeffe. Special thanks to Dr. Richard Fox for his contributions. Feedback about this episode can be submitted to Loyolan editor-in-chief Amy Carlyle at [email protected]