American elections have always been dominated by moneyed interests. For instance, during America’s last Gilded Age, in the presidential election of 1896, William McKinley, the Republican candidate, outspent his Democratic challenger by $3.5 million (roughly $140 million in today's dollars) to $400,000 (approximately $16 million today). McKinley went on to win the election with the help of robber baron J.P. Morgan and monopoly Standard Oil. As the example shows, powerful special interests have often translated their vast economic power into political influence. But recent court decisions threaten to permanently entrench the financial imbalance between the Republican and Democratic parties.
In this light, the Republican National Committee’s (RNC) decision to transfer more than $50 million to beleaguered congressional campaigns across the country must be judged. The impact of this massive infusion of cash into the otherwise struggling Senate campaigns cannot be overemphasized. On the other side, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) cannot match the GOP’s deep pockets filled by the likes of Elon Musk. The Republicans, even before this deluge of special interest money, enjoyed financial advantages. The money is coming at a particularly pivotal moment in the campaign as Republicans find themselves electorally underwater due to Trump’s unpopularity.
While the media has largely focused on the money angle, the larger story is the Supreme Court’s efforts to transform American democracy, or, as critics contend, undermine it.
How the Supreme Court’s Rulings Favor Wealthy
The Court has, for many decades, considered political spending as protected speech. The prime example of this interpretation is Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the 2010 decision that struck down restrictions on independent political spending by corporations and unions. The decision effectively opened the floodgates of special interest money by creating an environment in which they could make unlimited campaign spending as long as they remained outside formal party structures.
Since then, the Court has continued to effectively abolish any attempt to rein in political spending. Just this past June, the Court’s conservative majority ruled 6-3 in National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, which struck down federal limits on how much political parties could spend in coordination with their candidates. Justice Elena Kagan’s scathing dissent predicted that the decision would give wealthy donors greater influence over American politics by allowing them to circumvent contribution limits by funneling money through party organizations.
To be fair, proponents of weakening government constraints on political spending have a point that spending on candidates’ behalf is a form of political expression and that giving parties more freedom to aid their candidates helps to strengthen the parties and therefore representative government. But this view conveniently overlooks the fact that political parties operate in an environment where financial resources are distributed unequally.
As the current election cycle shows, the Republicans possess vastly greater resources than Democrats. The Court, far from making the political system more competitive, is instead reinforcing existing inequalities. By making candidates more dependent on wealthy donors and special interests, the Court’s decisions virtually assures that the system becomes increasingly attentive to their priorities. The result is a political system in which citizens lose influence while powerful economic interests gain influence over policy decisions.
Court’s Decisions Show Narrow Interpretation
The main problem is that the Supreme Court approaches campaign finance through the narrow lens of individual liberty, giving short shrift to the dangers concentrated economic power poses to democracy. This development makes the political equality promised by democratic institutions increasingly difficult to sustain.
The polls show that despite the historical levels of campaign spending by the Republicans, they are still in danger of losing both the House and Senate. The huge infusions of cash apparently cannot overcome Trump’s cratering in the polls. This shows that seemingly unlimited financial resources cannot always offset unpopular policies, weak candidates, or widespread public dissatisfaction.
If the Democrats manage to prevail despite being massively outspent, this outcome should not obscure money’s growing importance in today’s politics. The bottom line is money determines the effectiveness of parties’ communication with voters, ability to organize campaigns, mobilize supporters, and ability to effectively respond to attacks. In close races, these advantages can tip the scale.
Lessons from the Progressive Era
Just as the Gilded Age provide insight into our current political situation, so too does the Progressive Era give valuable historical lessons. Many Americans did not simply accept the concentration of economic power as a fact of life. They organized reform movements, changed political institutions, and eventually forced Congress to regulate campaign contributions. They understood that democracy was undermined when a small handful of wealthy interests wielded disproportionate political influence.
The work of these journalists, labor unions, farmers, and reformers produced long-lasting changes. Among these was the passage of the Tillman Act in 1907, banning direct corporate contributions to federal campaigns. Reformers at the state level enacted laws creating primary elections, initiatives, referendums, and recalls to weaken political bosses’ power. The 17th Amendment, ratified in 1913, took the power to elect U.S. senators from the boss-controlled state legislatures and put it in the voters’ hands. These reforms culminated in the ratification of the women’s right to vote, expanding suffrage to half the population.
What lessons can be learned from this history? First, electing a new set of leaders is not enough. True reform requires sustained public pressure, hence the importance of grass-roots organizing. Second, changing the rules of political competition is as important as electing new office holders. Finally, reform worthy of its name, must change campaign financing laws that elevate the interests of the wealthy above everyone else. That means the current Supreme Court remains reform’s biggest obstacle. One way of addressing this road block is instituting term limits for the Court.
The biggest lesson, however, is that the political power of wealth in the Gilded Age did not end because the wealthy voluntarily gave up their influence. Change only occurred when citizens organized, demanded accountability, and transformed the American democracy. That remains the central lesson for our time.
Robert Cropf is a professor emeritus of political science at Saint Louis University.
