Every year or election cycle, there is a limit on how much people and traditional PACs can contribute directly to a candidate. This law is intended to prohibit direct influence or the appearance of implied favors that may arise if unlimited donations were permitted.

The current state of American elections wasn’t built overnight; it is the result of three major Supreme Court “dominoes” that fell over the last fifty years:

1. Buckley v. Valeo (1976): This case reviewed the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) and established the foundational rule that “money is speech.” The Court upheld limits on how much you can give to a candidate (to prevent bribery), but struck down limits on what a candidate can spend of their own money, arguing that the government cannot tell a person how much “speech” they are allowed to buy.
2. Citizens United v. FEC (2010): The Court ruled that corporations and unions have First Amendment rights equivalent to individuals. This meant the government could no longer ban them from spending money to influence elections, provided they do so independently. This effectively authorized the Super PAC, opening the gate for unlimited “outside” money to flood the airwaves.
3. McCutcheon v. FEC (2014): Before this case, there was an “aggregate limit,” a total cap on how much one person could give to all candidates combined in an election cycle. The Court struck this down, ruling that a donor can give the maximum amount to as many different candidates and committees as they want. This empowered the ultra-wealthy to write multi-million dollar checks to entire political parties in one sitting.

However, there are Independent Expenditure-Only Committees, commonly known as Super PACs. They can accept unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations, and unions, but are legally prohibited from making direct contributions to a candidate. They can align with a candidate’s platform and run ads specifically to support that candidate as long as they do not coordinate their strategy with the campaign.

They play both sides of the electoral fence with the money. To make matters more opaque, many of these groups are paired with ‘Dark Money’ organizations that aren’t even required to disclose who the donors are, making the trail of influence nearly impossible for the average citizen to follow. They can run negative ads against a candidate they want to lose and positive ads for the candidate they want to win.

While this is legal by the letter of the law, I believe the spirit is abused. Legality does not make this practice right; in my view, the process is outdated and systemically corrupt. Although voters ultimately decide the outcome and candidates with less money can occasionally win, the scales are heavily weighted against those without significant financial backing. When a candidate benefits from the spending of an aligned Super PAC, they are compromised; it is a classic quid pro quo; the influence, whether direct or indirect, is clear.

The result of this questionable practice, although technically legal, has, in my view, fully compromised the integrity of candidates. Once in power with the backing that got them there, the expectation is that favors are granted. This is the indirect influence that can’t be easily proven, but we shouldn’t be naive enough to believe that a PAC representing a specific interest or industry, which donates millions, is not going to make some calls, visit some representatives, and get support or funding for a cause they need. Technology giants may expect tax benefits. Because no money physically changes hands directly does not mean there is no influence.

Also, once in power and accustomed to that financial environment, these senators and representatives often have advanced knowledge of changing laws, shifting markets, and other advantages the ordinary citizen is not privy to. A US senator or congressman rarely enters office a millionaire but frequently leaves a millionaire. Why change the rules when the people with the power to change them are benefiting from those rules? It is a closed system, and we, the everyday citizens, do not get to play in that yard.

What is proper is no outside funds, no PACs; every candidate gets a fixed government amount. The candidate  uses that money however they want; it is up to the candidate. That is true fairness. One field, one set of rules, best message to the voter wins.