In the decades since John McCain and Russ Feingold’s Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) passed in 2002, the tectonic plates of American politics have shifted, though not in the way reformers envisioned. Designed to curb the influence of unregulated "soft money" and ensure that candidates were beholden to voters rather than big donors, the law’s long-term consequences have proven more complicated and perhaps more detrimental than anticipated. As the 2024 presidential race unfolds, it is imperative to reexamine whether our current campaign finance system serves the republic—or whether it has been irreparably warped by unintended consequences.
When McCain-Feingold outlawed soft money, it marked the last significant legislative attempt to reform the flow of money into politics. While some saw the law as a victory for clean elections, the years since have revealed how the ban on soft money has weakened political parties, making them less effective at moderating candidates and more dependent on outside funding. The rise of super PACs, spurred by the 2010 Citizens United decision, has exacerbated this trend, allowing unregulated spending by independent entities and giving rise to fringe candidates with limited party accountability.
In the 2024 presidential cycle, we are witnessing the full consequences of these developments. Super PACs are playing an outsized role, not only in funding campaigns but in taking on critical election day operations and get-out-the-vote (GOTV) initiatives—functions traditionally managed by party organizations. Data from this election cycle indicates that spending by super PACs and other outside groups has eclipsed direct campaign contributions, especially in key battleground states where the race remains tight. Super PACs are funding sophisticated voter turnout operations, data-driven advertising campaigns, and digital mobilization efforts that often blur the line between “independent expenditure” and direct campaign coordination.
Super PACs are walking a legal tightrope as they push the boundaries of coordination, an area where the Federal Election Commission (FEC) has largely proven toothless. Technically, super PACs are prohibited from coordinating directly with candidates or their campaigns, but in practice, they constantly test the limits of this restriction. Whether through shared consultants, carefully timed communications, or public signals, super PACs have found ways to run operations that, while legally independent, are often indistinguishable from the candidates’ own strategies. This legal gray area is frequently challenged in court, but the results, especially in light of recent rulings, often favor a broad interpretation of free speech and allow this behavior to persist.
It is hard to ignore that this legal permissiveness has fueled the rise of candidates who, in earlier times, might not have garnered enough institutional support to remain competitive. In prior elections, the national parties played a moderating role, ensuring that only candidates who could unify diverse coalitions were able to advance to general elections. However, as super PACs have grown more powerful, they have empowered candidates on the ideological fringes—often at the expense of traditional party structures.
For example, in the 2024 Republican primary, super PACs backing both Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis have vastly outspent the Republican National Committee (RNC), leading to an environment where the national party has little say in shaping the race. Democratic contenders, such as Joe Biden, have also seen a dramatic influx of support from super PACs and outside groups, further diluting the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) influence. This shift is not limited to the presidential race; across the country, super PACs are funding down-ballot races, ensuring that extreme candidates who might lack party backing are well-financed and able to push their messages to voters.
The explosion of super PAC spending in 2024 has created a political landscape where independent entities control a large portion of the electoral process, undermining traditional party roles. Election day operations, which once fell under the purview of party organizations and were subject to party discipline, are now often handled by super PACs and their allied organizations. These groups mobilize voters, often in coordination with digital advertising campaigns that micro-target specific constituencies. This trend has only heightened concerns about whether super PACs are truly “independent” or merely function as shadow campaigns.
The legal framework that enables this system is in urgent need of readdressing. Citizens United opened the door for unlimited contributions to super PACs, citing the First Amendment’s protection of free speech as the justification for corporate and union spending in elections. However, this ruling, and subsequent decisions like SpeechNow.org v. FEC, have created an environment where a small number of ultra-wealthy donors can bankroll candidates, giving these donors disproportionate influence over the political process. Super PACs, once envisioned as supporting organizations, are now the main drivers of campaign spending.
Moreover, the legal restrictions on coordination between super PACs and campaigns have become increasingly porous. The FEC, tasked with enforcing these rules, is chronically understaffed and politically gridlocked, leaving many potential violations uninvestigated. Courts, for their part, have tended to side with super PACs and other outside groups, granting them wide latitude under the banner of free speech. Even when cases do arise where super PACs seem to cross the line into illegal coordination, the courts have often been reluctant to intervene, further emboldening these groups to continue pushing the boundaries of legality.
This judicial permissiveness has eroded the party system and, in doing so, opened the door to the rise of fringe candidates. By cutting off soft money and empowering super PACs, McCain-Feingold inadvertently weakened political parties’ ability to moderate their own candidates. Without the financial resources to run robust election day operations or enforce party discipline, both the Republican and Democratic parties have seen the rise of more extreme candidates who owe their loyalty to super PACs rather than to the party itself.
As we look toward 2024 and beyond, it is clear that the campaign finance system is in need of serious reform. McCain-Feingold’s attempt to limit the influence of soft money may have succeeded in its immediate goal, but it failed to anticipate the rise of a new era of outside spending dominated by super PACs and billionaire donors. The resulting political landscape has contributed to greater polarization and weakened the party apparatuses that once played a critical role in moderating extremism.
It is time for Congress to revisit campaign finance reform and craft a system that addresses the influence of super PACs and restores some measure of balance to our elections. A more transparent system, one that places greater emphasis on small-dollar donations and strengthens the role of parties in election day operations, would go a long way toward addressing the current dysfunction. In a democracy, the ability to influence elections should not be the sole purview of the wealthiest few. By recalibrating the system, we can ensure that elections reflect the will of the people—not the checkbooks of a select few donors.
Senate Ballot Box Scores
Comments