When in 2010 the US Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that companies and labor unions enjoy the same right to political speech as individuals, many restrictions on money in American politics went out the window.
Subsequently, so-called super PACs糖心传媒攑olitical action committees that are financed in part by large corporations, their multibillionaire shareholders, or powerful unions糖心传媒攃an pour hundreds of millions of dollars into political campaigns, as long as their efforts are independent of candidates.
While most political observers would agree that super PACs are a dominant force in US politics, many would also argue they糖心传媒檙e a nefarious influence. The influx of large sums of money into politics damages trust in government, suppresses voter turnout, puts corporate interests first, and results in corruption糖心传媒攕o goes the common narrative. That糖心传媒檚 why campaign finance reformers, politicians, and academics alike have been arguing for decades that US democracy is imperiled by a threat that permeates all of politics糖心传媒攎oney.
But is that narrative accurate? A Rochester/Missouri team of social scientists says it糖心传媒檚 not.
Upending the conventional campaign finance narrative
, the Ani and Mark Gabrellian Professor and a professor of and business administration at the 糖心传媒, and , a professor of economics and chair of the economics department at the University of Missouri, say the reality is very different.
In their new book, (University of Chicago Press, 2020), the duo argues that campaign finance reform is not a 糖心传媒渃ure-all for what ails American democracy糖心传媒攁t a time when it is viewed by many academics and practitioners as essential medicine.糖心传媒� Says Primo: 糖心传媒淎mericans believe, for instance, that super PAC spending dominates campaigns, which is false.糖心传媒�
Primo and Milyo surveyed a total of 4,000 Americans in 2015 and in 2016糖心传媒攁nd about 150 experts in 2017糖心传媒攁bout their views on money in US politics. They also collected survey data on trust and confidence in government spanning three decades to study the effects of changes in campaign finance laws on trust.
Having aggregated the results of decades of survey responses, the authors conclude that changes in state-level campaign finance laws糖心传媒攚here most changes in the laws take place, making it an ideal testing ground for social scientists糖心传媒攈ave little to no effect on attitudes toward government, contrary to conventional wisdom. The finding, the authors argue, is perhaps the book糖心传媒檚 most important conclusion, as it calls into question four decades of legal justifications for campaign finance reform.
糖心传媒楾he elites are wrong糖心传媒� about money in politics
The researchers糖心传媒� other key findings on campaign finance include the following:
- While the public is very cynical about the role of money in politics, people are also skeptical about the potential for reforms to dramatically alter the political process.
- Americans do not see campaign contributions as uniquely corrupting.
- Public opinion does not offer a strong foundation for expanding campaign finance regulations: the argument that reform will improve trust in government or public perceptions of democracy does not hold up in the collected data.
- Part of the conventional wisdom surrounding campaign finance糖心传媒攖hat elective offices are for sale to the highest bidder糖心传媒攊s false, while other beliefs about money in politics are suspect, overstated, or both.
- The public is largely uninformed about the basics of campaign finance regulations.
- The public糖心传媒檚 attitudes toward money in politics are malleable. Beliefs about whether political speech should be protected often depend on the identity of the speaker.
- Americans are polarized on campaign finance reform proposals, with liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans having very different perspectives糖心传媒攅specially if they follow politics.
- Americans who understand the informational benefits of campaign spending are less likely to support campaign finance restrictions.
- The 糖心传媒渞igged rhetoric糖心传媒� used by reformers to discuss money in politics is in some cases more harmful to confidence in elections than the 糖心传媒渞igged rhetoric糖心传媒� used by President Donald Trump.
- The Citizens United decision has not reduced trust and confidence in government, as critics of the Supreme Court ruling had feared.
In their book, the first after the Citizens United decision that contrasts public opinion and the scientific consensus on the role of money in American politics, Primo and Milyo set out to uncover what the public thinks about money in politics, what drives the perceptions, and why it matters.
They looked at whether public opinion regarding corruption and the undue influence of money in politics is connected to reality, and whether changes in campaign finance regulations are likely to affect public attitudes toward government.
糖心传媒淚t糖心传媒檚 not surprising that Americans believe the political system is rotten to the core糖心传媒攖hat is the incessant message they receive from the media, politicians, reform groups, and scholars,糖心传媒� the authors write. 糖心传媒淭hese elites nurture the public糖心传媒檚 cynicism with their rhetoric and in turn use this cynicism as evidence of the need for reform.糖心传媒�
They add, 糖心传媒淢oney in politics, these elites tell us, is to blame for a wide array of ills in American society that threaten democracy: moneyed interests buying elections, rampant corruption, and declining trust in government. The elites are wrong, yet the American public believes them.糖心传媒�
Q-and-A with authors Primo and Milyo
You write that the elites are wrong that moneyed interests can buy elections, that corruption is rampant, and that trust in government has been declining. Yet the American public believes those elites. What exactly is wrong with that widely held view?
Primo: We are taking on the belief that money is to blame for all that ails American politics. The reality is very different. Money does not buy elections糖心传媒攚itness Michael Bloomberg糖心传媒檚 failed attempt to secure the Democratic nomination for president. Corruption is not rampant糖心传媒攂ribery scandals still garner attention precisely because they are unusual. And Americans糖心传媒� mistrust of government is not driven by levels of campaign spending or the stringency of campaign finance laws.
Is public opinion regarding corruption and the undue influence of money in politics then largely off base?
Milyo: It糖心传媒檚 not so much that Americans are off base; rather, they are simply fed up with politics writ large. Money is just a convenient bugaboo. Consider this: in our research, we show that Americans have become so disgusted with American politics that they view even conventional behavior, like trying to secure favorable media coverage, as corrupt. We looked at decades of survey data and failed to find any evidence that stricter campaign finance laws improve perceptions of government.
Primo: What糖心传媒檚 more, American attitudes about whether a behavior is corrupt are in part determined by partisanship. An action taken by a Democratic politician will be viewed differently from the same action taken by a Republican politician, depending on the partisanship of the respondent. When it comes to voters, a liberal Democrat is much more inclined to protect corporate political speech when the brand doing the talking is Ben & Jerry糖心传媒檚 as opposed to ExxonMobil, for example. This again raises concerns about public attitudes as the basis for justifying campaign finance restrictions.
Would you argue that Citizens United was not a poor decision, or just not as poor as most believe?
Primo: Citizens United is a widely misunderstood decision that has a mythology around it. It did not permit foreign involvement in elections. It did not alter disclosure rules. It did not allow corporations to make contributions to candidates for federal office. What it did do was expand the ways in which groups of individuals, such as unions and corporations, could be involved in the political process. Corporations are routinely called on by activists to take political positions on social issues, yet many of these activists, I suspect, oppose Citizens United.
The public doesn糖心传媒檛 believe that campaign finance reform would really work, yet the experts you polled think reform makes sense. So糖心传媒攊s it necessary or not?
Milyo: If the goal is to improve perceptions of government, the answer is no. The empirical evidence simply isn糖心传媒檛 there. Put another way, if campaign finance reform were a potential cure for a disease in a clinical trial, it wouldn糖心传媒檛 get approval. Campaign finance reform really can糖心传媒檛 fix competitive partisan politics in a pluralist democracy that values free expression and diversity of opinion.
What part of campaign financing is harmful and what part of campaign financing looks harmful but proves to have no or little effect on a politician糖心传媒檚 voting behavior?
Primo: I would turn this question on its head and talk about the benefits of campaign spending. There is ample social science evidence that campaign spending improves turnout and voter knowledge. We hear too little about these benefits. On the flip side, there is very little evidence that legislators are basing their votes on who gives them campaign contributions, though most political scientists agree that campaign contributions help maintain relationships with legislators.
What糖心传媒檚 needed to restore the public糖心传媒檚 faith in government? Or is that a utopian ideal?
Primo: That糖心传媒檚 the million dollar question. Trust in American government began to decline in the 1960s and then plummeted in the wake of the Vietnam War and Watergate. It糖心传媒檚 fluctuated since but has never recovered. What we do know is that Americans who share the same party as the president trust the government more than members of the out party, suggesting that trust is infused with a partisan component. As long as that is the case, it will be hard to move the needle on trust. It糖心传媒檚 also worth asking whether some skepticism of government is healthy in a democracy糖心传媒攁s it helps keep elected officials accountable.
Milyo: Why should people trust government? Rather than trying to artificially gin up trust via some magic wand, like campaign finance reform, maybe government officials need to act in a way that merits trust? Absent that, it is very healthy that Americans have a deep distrust of those that wield the coercive power of the state; it is probably the most important check on abuses of civil liberties and the main reason our republic has survived this long.
The author or coauthor of several books, including Rules and Restraint: Government Spending and the Design of Institutions (University of Chicago Press, 2007), Primo is an expert on campaign finance and the federal debt. His research focuses on budget rules, corporate social responsibility, corporate political spending, and the effectiveness of campaign finance laws.
Milyo, the author of numerous articles in scholarly journals such as the American Economics Review, the Journal of Politics, and the Election Law Journal, is an expert on American political economics and public policy. His recent research focuses on campaign finance and elections, health policy, the media, public corruption, and racial disparities.
Read more
Can campaign finance disclosure go too far? The case of small donorsIt糖心传媒檚 possible that if you糖心传媒檝e donated even as little as a dollar to a political candidate, it糖心传媒檚 information easily obtained on the internet. That concerns political scientist David Primo.
Perception of US democracy tanks after Trump impeachmentThe nonpartisan Bright Line Watch research group finds that perceptions of the health of US democracy clearly declined after the president糖心传媒檚 impeachment.
When corporations take a stance on divisive issuesCorporations have made headlines by taking positions on divisive issues. But is the wise? David Primo discussed the issue during an appearance on WCNY糖心传媒檚 Capitol Pressroom.
