Money in Politics
Citizens United and the Decline of US Democracy: Assessing the Decision’s Impact 15 Years Later.
This report looks at how Citizens United changed billionaire spending in federal and state elections from 2010-2024 and how the case continues to damage US democracy. The report also proposes ways to restore the democratic balance in the post-Citizens United era, through both large-scale and immediate reforms.
Author: Rachel Funk Fordham
The hydraulic theory predicts that money in politics will find a way to circumvent new campaign finance regulations. A specific concern, especially after the Supreme Court decisions in Citizens United and SpeechNow, is that limits on direct campaign contributions to candidates and committees will shift political spending toward less transparent independent expenditures. In this article, we study the effects of changes to direct contribution limits on independent expenditures. Contra hydraulic theory, we argue that direct contributions and independent expenditures are not substitutes, and thus strict direct contribution limits will not lead to greater independent expenditures. Exploiting major campaign finance policy changes in Alaska, Arkansas, Missouri, and Tennessee, we find that the policies reduced the size of direct contributions as designed, but did not affect independent expenditures.
Authors: Jake Grumbach, Chris Kulesza, and Chris Witko
Anti-democratic influence: the effect of Citizens United on state democratic performance.
Does money in politics affect democratic performance? This study looks at the effect of the Supreme Court’s 2010 landmark decision in Citizens United v. FEC, which struck down existing state bans on independent campaign expenditures, on democracy in the U.S. states. Results from a difference-in-differences design indicate that the Citizens United ruling had a substantial negative effect on state democratic performance and that this effect is largely independent of the effect of Republican party control identified by previous research. The results suggest that unlimited political spending may pose a threat to the health of democracy in the United States.
Author: Rachel Funk Fordham
Old money: Campaign finance and gerontocracy in the United States
Politicians in the United States rank among the oldest globally. This study examines how money in politics contributes to age inequality in political representation. Using record-linkage to construct a novel data set combining the ages of voters, donors, and candidates, we find that the median dollar in US elections comes from a 66-year-old—significantly older than the median voter, candidate, or elected official. Results from within-district and within-donor analyses confirm that age proximity with candidates increases contributions on the extensive and intensive margins. Finally, we simulate candidate fundraising by age under a hypothetical campaign finance voucher policy.
Authors: Adam Bonica and Jake Grumbach