A conversation about one of the most animating bipartisan issues in politics.
I’m Isaac Saul, and this is Tangle: an independent, nonpartisan, subscriber-supported politics newsletter that summarizes the best arguments from across the political spectrum on the news of the day — then “my take.”
Are you new here? Get free emails to your inbox daily. Would you rather listen? You can find our podcast here.
We hear a lot about what Americans don’t agree on, but one issue that unites Republican and Democratic voters is money in politics — specifically, the amount of money in politics. A September 2023 Pew Research survey found that 83% of Republicans and 80% of Democrats think wealthy political donors have too much influence over the decisions that members of Congress make. 72% of Americans also think there should be limits on the amount of money individuals and organizations can spend on political campaigns, including 71% of Republicans and 76% of Democrats.
Despite these strong majorities, meaningful campaign finance reform has proven elusive since the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. In that case, the court found political spending to be a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, and ruled that the government may not restrict the ability of corporations or unions to spend money to support or oppose political candidates — as long as they are not directly coordinating with them. The decision led to the creation of super political action committees (super PACs) — also known as independent expenditure-only committees — which can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money for or against political candidates, so long as they don’t directly coordinate with campaigns.
However, Citizens United also catalyzed a movement to limit the influence of money in politics, leading to the creation of organizations like RepresentUs. The group calls itself “America’s leading nonpartisan anti-corruption organization fighting to fix our broken and ineffective government,” and it’s one of the most active — and successful — organizations working on campaign finance and electoral reform.
This week, editor Will Kaback sat down with Dave O’Brien, the policy director for RepresentUs, to ask him some of the questions our readers always ask us about money in politics — how it works, how it’s changed, and what can be done to stop it. The conversation touched on how wealthy individuals like Elon Musk impacted the election, the ballot initiatives on campaign finance reform that RepresentUs supported in 2024, whether there’s anything good about super PACs, and some of the innovative ways that local governments are regulating money in politics.
Will spoke with O’Brien on Thursday, and the interview below has been lightly edited for clarity.
Will Kaback: Dave O’Brien, thanks for joining us.
Dave O'Brien: Thanks so much for having me. I'm excited to be here.
Will Kaback: So I want to start off talking very broadly about the role of money in our current politics and the way that you think about this issue. I'd love it if you could just outline your broad philosophy on the role that money plays in our current politics and what you're working on right now in your role at RepresentUs.
Dave O'Brien: RepresentUs was founded in the wake of the Citizens United case, which many people are familiar with. Long story short, before that case, we had always had a lot of money in American politics, but there had been a regulatory system in place to at least try to restrict it. But after Citizens United, the floodgates opened. We started seeing eye-watering amounts of money pour into our election campaigns.
There has always been a certain amount of dissatisfaction with the political process and our elections. It's a zero-sum system — there's always winners, there's always losers. It's common for people to feel disempowered in that way. People feel like their vote doesn't matter, and it's hard to get them to feel their one vote in an ocean of millions of votes makes a difference. It does, but I understand why people feel that way. And then you add not just millions, not just hundreds of millions, but now billions of dollars to that system — often coming from a select few people.
There is an argument that money in politics is democratic because people are giving money as a way to express their political views. In reality, what we have is a situation where a very small number of people can spend more money than any of us will ever see in our lifetime — more than the GDP of a city or a small country — to influence elections. A situation like this creates this persistent feeling that the people in charge aren't listening to you or responding to the problems you have in everyday life.
People are worried about climate change. People are worried about basic civil liberties. People are worried about the economy. And they feel like the people that they’ve elected aren't listening to them, but they are spending a lot of time listening to people who give lots of money. It's hard to escape the feeling that it's not your votes that they're paying attention to.
We see it all the time: A big donor drops a lot of money into a race, their candidate gets elected, and then the politician does things that are beneficial to the finances of that big donor. It sends a signal to donors to keep pumping money into these elections, and there’s been a persistent effort for the past several decades to erode the restrictions on money in politics. A lot of money has gone into that effort, almost as an investment. And now we have a situation where, since some of those guardrails are down, even more money can get into the system. It creates a vicious cycle where donor money continues to grow and grow, but everyday people feel like their influence is just getting smaller and smaller and smaller.
Will Kaback: Real quick, could you explain the difference between a regular PAC and a super PAC for our audience?
Dave O'Brien: PACs — political action committees — have been around since the 50s, but it wasn't until the 80s that they became as influential as they are now. Both PACs and super PACs are groups created to spend money on elections and other aspects of politics, but normal PACs are allowed to be much more aligned with the candidates and campaigns. In fact, it’s pretty common for most candidates or elected officials to create their own individual PACs, which can accept donations for their campaigns. Crucially, though, there are restrictions on how much and how many donations a PAC can accept from different donors.
A super PAC does not officially coordinate with a campaign, but it has no restrictions on how much it can take in. Say I'm a good friend of yours, and when it becomes clear you're going to run for office, I create a super PAC to support it. You're not allowed to call me up and tell me your strategy or where you want me to spend money, but I can spend money how I think you would want to. You could even publish a strategy document on your campaign website saying, “Hey, here's what I think our campaign should do to be successful,” and then I can take those cues and spend the super PAC money that way. Under the current rules, I would just be using my free speech as an interested citizen by spending the money to help you get elected.
Will Kaback: I think that's a great segue into my next question. For a lot of people, we hear about the sums of money being poured into politics and it's an amount that's hard to wrap your mind around. But what exactly that money is being deployed to do — and the degree to which it's effective in helping politicians win elections — can be more opaque. Is this money mainly going towards advertising? Is it going towards staffing campaigns? How is this money being deployed in a way that's effective?