In Politics, Money Makes The World Go Round-- Just Like In Real Life

This morning I was looking at the OpenSecrets contribution numbers for the last cycle, concentrating on which candidates got most of their campaign contributions from small donors and which candidates got most of their contributions from… well, wealthy people, lobbyists, special interests, etc. There are only 10 current members of Congress who got over 50% of their contributions from small donors ($200 or less):

• Bernie Sanders- 70.25% ($26,913,409)

• Marjorie Traitor Greene- 68.32% ($8,572,027)

• AOC- 67.67% ($8,326,902)

• Matt Gaetz- 62.245% ($3,973,659)

• Gym Jordan- 58.05% ($8,113,157)

• Adam Schiff- 56.63% ($14,152,934)

• Katie Porter- 55.61% ($14,267,851)

• Elizabeth Warren- 53.46% ($19,960,011)

• Jake Ellzey- 52.40% ($3,564,741)— special election

• Randy Paul- 50.93% ($14,133,287)

But what fascinated me even more were the scores and scores of members who got less than 5% of their campaign contributions from small donors— in other words, 95% or more from large donors. And they’re not all Republicans either. Over 200 members of Congress fit into that category! And that would be from Senators Chris Coons (D-DE— 4.97%) and Roger Wicker (R-MS— 4.92%) right down to House members who literally got zero dollars from small donors, like Mark Green (R-TN) and Lori Trahan (New Dem-MA). California Democrats Lucille Roybal-Allard and Grace Napolitano got $1 and $162, respectively, and the rest came from big donors. Most of the worst and most crooked Blue Dogs and New Dems— not to mention Republicans— get their money from big donors.

You know that rule the RNC instituted that says that in order to qualify for their first debate, a candidate must show they have had a minimum of 40,000 unique donors and at least 200 unique donors each from 20 or more states. You know why? First off, requiring a large number of unique donors and donors from multiple states indicates a candidate's ability to garner support and generate interest across a wide range of individuals and geographic areas. It demonstrates that the candidate has a significant base of support that extends beyond a specific region or group. And by setting a minimum number of unique donors, the RNC aims to promote candidates who can mobilize grassroots support. This requirement encourages candidates to engage with a diverse set of individuals and encourages a broader representation of voices and interests within the party. The donor requirements serve as a measure of a candidate's overall viability and fundraising capabilities. What they want to do at that first debate is showcase candidates with broad support, grassroots appeal, and the ability to mount competitive campaigns. It provides a way for the RNC to identify and promote candidates who have demonstrated a certain level of credibility and viability within the party. Makes sense.

On the other hand, the fact that many members of Congress rely heavily on larger donations from wealthy individuals, lobbyists, and special interests, rather than small donors, should raise concerns about the influence of money in politics and implications for representation and accountability. The reliance on large donations certainly suggests that some members of Congress are more connected to and responsive to the interests of wealthy individuals and special interest groups who can afford to make significant contributions. This raises very serious questions about whose voices are being prioritized in the policymaking process.

Depending heavily on larger donations almost always leads to a reduced emphasis on addressing the concerns and needs of ordinary citizens. Candidates who rely on wealthy donors and special interests tend to prioritize issues that align with the interests of those donors, neglecting issues that affect everyday constituents.

And then there’s this impediment to democracy: the substantial financial resources required for successful campaigns creates barriers to entry for candidates without personal wealth or access to well-funded networks. This severely limits the diversity and inclusiveness of elected officials and reduces the opportunities for individuals from underrepresented or marginalized communities to run for office.