# How well do campaign-financing systems work in non-U.S. countries? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 14, 2004, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-well-do-campaign-financing-systems-work-in-non-u-s-countries/264339 "2004-09-14T00:53:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2004, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-well-do-campaign-financing-systems-work-in-non-u-s-countries/264339/1 "2004-09-14T00:53:34Z")
Last year I posted this GQ thread – “How does campaign financing work in countries other than the U.S.?” – [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=223440](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=223440). Some Dopers provided valuable information on how campaigns are financed in Britain, France, Norway, Germany, etc. In all these countries – and, it appears, in most of the world’s democracies – there is some public financing and some limits on private campaign-related contributions, all for the purpose of reducing the influence of private money on the electoral process. But nobody actually said whether or not their country’s system **works** – whether it actually does reduce the influence of money on elections. Last month **furt** posted this GD thread – “Campaign Finance Reform is a flop.” – [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=271914](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=271914). **furt’s** thesis was that since the McCain-Feingold Bill was passed, some politically interested parties have gotten around it by starting the “527s” to buy advertising, nominally independently of the supported candidates’ campaign organizations. His point was that campaign-finance reform laws are like the War on Drugs – pointless because they’re not really enforceable; people who want to spend money to influence elections will always find a way. I want to test that proposition. Maybe it’s not working here in the U.S. because we’re not doing it the right way. Maybe other countries have better systems – or maybe their systems don’t really work either. For some reason, when we debate campaign-finance reform here in the U.S., the questions of how and how successfully other countries approach the problem never seems to come up. Does anybody know more about this? Since this is not a question with a strictly factual, non-debatable, answer, I’m posting it in GD, not GQ; but it was a close call. N.B.: Let’s not get hijacked. The question of whether or not campaign spending is “protected political speech” under the First Amendment, which always seems to come up in when discussing campaign-finance reform, is **not** relevant to the topic of this thread. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2004, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-well-do-campaign-financing-systems-work-in-non-u-s-countries/264339/2 "2004-09-14T03:06:35Z")
What do you mean exactly when you ask whether it works or not? If the rules are actually enforced and respected? I think it’s the case in France, since the candidates must provide a detailled account of their campaign expenses and spending more than the limit would result in your election being cancelled. The courts in charge of overseeing this can reinclude expenses that haven’t been “forgotten” or underestimated. I vaguely remember a case where a printer vastly underbilled a canditate for its flyers, for instance. So, advertizing on billboards, for instance, even paid for by a “friend” would be included in the campaign costs. Political advertizing on TV and radios is plainly banned, regardless of who would pay for it, except for the airtime the candidates or parties get for free (equal time for each candidate during the presidential election. A little more complicated for legislative elections). There are issues with the financing of political parties in France, but I don’t think there are much issues with the financing of actual campaigns. I think that if it doesn’t work in the USA, it’s probably for cultural reasons. I can think of two of them : first, the hype about “freedom of speech” would probably prevent too strict regulations from being passed as law, possibly even on constitutionnal grounds, or to be accepted by the population as legitimate. And I suppose that such very strict limitations would be necessary. Here, there’s much more emphasis on the “equality” (in this case between the canditates) than on the “liberty” (in this case freedom of speech) parts of the national motto. American people may regret that money plays such a big part in the elections, but french people would probably be outraged by a similar situation. I suspect you could even lose a significant number of votes if it appeared that you’re spending a big deal of money, especially coming from large companies or wealthy individuals. Second, probably because deep rooted habbits and methods are difficult to change. Since implicated people, companies, candidates, parties, pressure groups, etc…aren’t accustomed to be limited, they find ways around the few existing regulations, and it isn’t perceived by them or by the population as a big deal. On the other hand, in France, the limit on the expenses during campaigns have been added quite recently, but since there was already a tradition of political campaigns being strictly regulated in various other ways, it still wasn’t really a significant change. Besides, the main parties (and marginal parties aren’t going to spend a lot of money) agreed on these rules. So why would they want to ignore something they themselves decided? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2004, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-well-do-campaign-financing-systems-work-in-non-u-s-countries/264339/3 "2004-09-14T03:14:07Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > What do you mean exactly when you ask whether it works or not? If the rules are actually enforced and respected? What I mean is, do people with money find a way of using money to influence the elections, **despite** the rules? Either by breaking them, or by finding a way around them (as with the 527s in the U.S.). ---
**Author:** ![Mops](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mops/32/16494_2.png) [@Mops](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mops)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2004, 12:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-well-do-campaign-financing-systems-work-in-non-u-s-countries/264339/4 "2004-09-14T12:38:13Z")
As for Germany, I’d say money does not much influence elections per se. The political influence of money plays out in other ways: - on a municipial level, the party donation sum that’s allowed without declaring the donor can be (and has been in some cases) sufficient to sway decisions on planning permissions etc. - on a level higher that municipial, it’s just not enough. - if you are a media corporation, you sway public opinion on policy/elections via your products - if you are a non-media corporation, you sway public opinion (on policy, mostly) by skilful PR, alone or in concert with other corporations. One major exception is: there is a diffuse “protest”/“pro-nobody-anti-whoever-is-in-charge” vote of some 5-15 per cent around (depending on location and time) that usually is shared between a lot of marginal parties (extreme left/extreme right/extremely loony), none of which reach the 5 % barrier, so these parties don’t get seats. There have been cases of far-right parties (such as the DVU, “owned” by a rich right-wing publisher) putting a lot of money to saturating an area with publicity, which gives them a chance to mop up most of the “protest” vote and thus getting seats. It usually leads to a row of nominee-nonentities elected to a state parliament the parliamentary group of which then proceeds to self-destruct during the next few years. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2004, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-well-do-campaign-financing-systems-work-in-non-u-s-countries/264339/5 "2004-09-14T13:56:43Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > N.B.: Let’s not get hijacked. The question of whether or not campaign spending is “protected political speech” under the First Amendment, which always seems to come up in when discussing campaign-finance reform, is **not** relevant to the topic of this thread. [quick disclaimer-hijack] The CFR **is** a blatant violation of the first ammendment protections of free speach. [/quick disclaimer-hijack] That having been said, I’ll toss my $.02 into the pot. The ability to get money out of politics simply does not belong to the government of this country. Even if there were a way to do it (which I doubt) in other countries, it’s not possible here. This country runs on money. Politicians need it to finance thier campaigns. Rich and poor people have it and want to help finance their campaigns. Capitalism ensures that there will always be a way for this to happen. When you pass a law blocking it, a new way to channel the money will appear: like the 527’s. There is no real political will for this type of legislation to begin with. It sits very low on the list of issues that most Americans are concerned with. Politicians passed McCain Feingold because they wanted to protect incumbants and prevent citizens from speaking through special interest groups that they didn’t like. The law was never intended to actually stop financing of political campaigns, IMO. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2004, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-well-do-campaign-financing-systems-work-in-non-u-s-countries/264339/6 "2004-09-14T19:40:50Z")
[QUOTE=DebaserThe ability to get money out of politics simply does not belong to the government of this country. Even if there were a way to do it (which I doubt) in other countries, it’s not possible here. This country runs on money.[/QUOTE] What makes this country any different in that regard from Britain, France and Germany – the countries that **invented** modern commerce and industry? ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2004, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-well-do-campaign-financing-systems-work-in-non-u-s-countries/264339/7 "2004-09-14T22:42:15Z")
I have an observation that may be somewhat tangental to the issue at hand, but I personally think it is relevant to put things in perspective. And I believe it may do something to answer the question BrainGlutton posted. You have to realize when looking at the United States and our elections that you are indeed looking at for all intents and purposes the oldest functioning representative democracy. The Swiss have certain objections they can make in that area, but I’m going to generalize them out of the discussion, for generalizations sake (sorry Swiss.) In the beginning of the American democratic experiment campaigns were fairly political, despite the grave warnings of some of the Founding Fathers (warnings that from many of them were very hypocritical.) However pretty much back to 1792 we have very “political” campaigns being conducted. Money was not in the equation so much back then, campaigns tended to be conducted via proxy, pen names in newspapers and the such. Money would come in somewhat because some candidates ran their own newspapers, but historically speaking we really go to the 1830s/1840s before we start seeing the huge “big money” campaigns. The Whigs probably conducted some of the most ridiculous campaign schemes during the early days of America. Anyways money steadily increased in importance in American politics until we hit the mid 1870s and the gilded age. That’s when things explode exponentially. Money determined everything, and the people that controlled money controlled party manpower (via political machines.) I could go through the rest of the history of elections, but I’ll not do that here. Just suffice to say money in our campaigns had been entrenched for 60+ years long before most of the modern European democracies had really shaped themselves. I mean, Germany, you have to look to the 1940s before you have the emergence of the modern democratic Germany. With France, they’ve had so many rewritten constitutions it’s hard to keep track. Anyways, the Euros know better than most the history of their own democratic systems. To generalize, most of them didn’t start to establish what I would call truly sovereign and representative democracies until at least 1900, and in some cases it was mid-century after WWII (and in some of course it was after they escaped the soviet bloc.) In Europe you don’t really have this entrenched historical and tradtional idea of campaigns being ran by big money. In the United States, by the time even a sizable group had observed it as a “problem” it had been going on for over 125 years. The basic problem is one you see all the time with various things, tradition dies hard. And this is a pretty solid tradition. Furthermore, many of the very people who would be necessary in fixing campaign finance (if indeed it needs “fixed”) are politicians that benefit from it and would be unwilling to sign anything into law (the McCain-Feingold bill is an exception because it simply isn’t a bill that does much of anything for the better.) ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2004, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-well-do-campaign-financing-systems-work-in-non-u-s-countries/264339/8 "2004-09-14T22:47:21Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > What I mean is, do people with money find a way of using money to influence the elections, **despite** the rules? Either by breaking them, or by finding a way around them (as with the 527s in the U.S.). I think people with lots of money have always found a way to make their influence felt. I’m not sure campaign finance is as important in most countries as most of them don’t have a perpetual political campaign as we seem to. The amount of money required to run a campaign for national office in the US is breathtaking. The politician has to have somebody raising campaign money 100% of the time. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2004, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-well-do-campaign-financing-systems-work-in-non-u-s-countries/264339/9 "2004-09-15T00:18:17Z")
> [@Martin Hyde](#): > > Furthermore, many of the very people who would be necessary in fixing campaign finance (if indeed it needs “fixed”) are politicians that benefit from it and would be unwilling to sign anything into law (the McCain-Feingold bill is an exception because it simply isn’t a bill that does much of anything for the better.) They “benefit” from the system only in the sense that they managed to get elected under it. Do you think they **like** having to spend their whole terms in office raising money for the next election? ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2004, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-well-do-campaign-financing-systems-work-in-non-u-s-countries/264339/10 "2004-09-15T12:41:04Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > What makes this country any different in that regard from Britain, France and Germany – the countries that **invented** modern commerce and industry? They are much more socialist and less capitalist in nature. From my understanding, people in Europe have a much different outlook on the proper role of government than folks in the US. For instance, an American conservative outlook basically doesn’t even exist over there. Their right looks like our left. Their left is openly socialist! IMO people in Britain, France or Germany are much more likely to be in support of the government taking a more active role in something like CFR. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2004, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-well-do-campaign-financing-systems-work-in-non-u-s-countries/264339/11 "2004-09-15T17:36:34Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > They are much more socialist and less capitalist in nature. From my understanding, people in Europe have a much different outlook on the proper role of government than folks in the US. But is that difference a cause of our private campaign-financing system – or a result of it? ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2004, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-well-do-campaign-financing-systems-work-in-non-u-s-countries/264339/12 "2004-09-15T18:45:49Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > But is that difference a cause of our private campaign-financing system – or a result of it? I was more looking at it the other way. The difference is the cause of their public financing systems. Of course, as an American conservative, I tend to assume that the default for everything is private sector ownership. If the government wants to get involved they better have a very compelling reason. However, in Europe everything leans more left. The government gets involved in a lot more things with less compelling reasons. A European might ask _why not_ have a public financing system for campaigns, but an American would ask _why_ have one at all. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2004, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-well-do-campaign-financing-systems-work-in-non-u-s-countries/264339/13 "2004-09-16T17:04:27Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > Of course, as an American conservative, I tend to assume that the default for everything is private sector ownership. If the government wants to get involved they better have a very compelling reason. However, in Europe everything leans more left. The government gets involved in a lot more things with less compelling reasons. A European might ask _why not_ have a public financing system for campaigns, but an American would ask _why_ have one at all. Fair comment. But I’m trying to make this thread about the **other** countries, and about whether or not their public campaign-financing systems work as intended. Let’s hear from some more foreigners: Are there any Japanese or German or Australian or British Dopers out there who can tell us? Are you familiar with any ways in which rich people and/or corporations in your countries manage to use money to exercise influence on the electoral process out of proportion to their numbers, despite laws meant to prevent that? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2004, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-well-do-campaign-financing-systems-work-in-non-u-s-countries/264339/14 "2004-09-18T20:40:06Z")
From an article by Steven Hill, 1995 ([http://www.giantleap.org/envision/campaign.htm](http://www.giantleap.org/envision/campaign.htm)): > [@](#): > > Public debate about campaign finance reform has proceeded in deep ignorance of how other democracies confront the issue. Yet a comparative approach sheds new light on potential solutions. A survey of rules and practices of the 20 democracies of Western Europe, Canada, Japan, Israel, Australia and New Zealand reveals the following approaches: 1) outright restrictions on the amount of campaign spending for legislative races; 2) restrictions on the amount of donations; 3) public financing of elections; an d 4) free media access to candidates and parties, coupled with a prohibition on paid political advertisements. Some countries combine several of these, a few use all four. The United States stands alone in being the only country to utilize only one of t hese practices for legislative elections, namely restrictions on the amount of donations. > > For instance, Canada, France, New Zealand, and Great Britain place firm limits on candidates’ campaign spending. The ceiling for legislative candidates ranges from $6200 in New Zealand, $15,000 in Great Britain, $22,000 in Canada, to $75,000 in France. Belgium, Spain and Israel restrict the amount of “soft money” campaign spending by parties. In the U.S. there are no such limits, and costs for legislative races often exceed a half a million dollars. All the above figures are, of course, from 1995. Does anybody know whether they are significantly out of date? ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2004, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-well-do-campaign-financing-systems-work-in-non-u-s-countries/264339/15 "2004-09-21T17:02:26Z")
> [@](#): > > Does anybody know whether they are significantly out of date? The ban was [renewed last year](http://www.communicationsbill.gov.uk/press_notices/dcms203_02.htm) in the UK, in response to the findings of the [Neill Committe Report](http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm40/4057/4057.htm): “As part of the Bill, the present ban on political advertising on television and radio is renewed and clarified. The Government believes, as did the Neill Committee, that this is an important plank in protecting the impartiality of broadcasting and democratic debate.” - Tessa Jowell. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2004, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-well-do-campaign-financing-systems-work-in-non-u-s-countries/264339/16 "2004-09-21T17:08:02Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > The ban was [renewed last year](http://www.communicationsbill.gov.uk/press_notices/dcms203_02.htm) in the UK, in response to the findings of the [Neill Committe Report](http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm40/4057/4057.htm): > > “As part of the Bill, the present ban on political advertising on television and radio is renewed and clarified. The Government believes, as did the Neill Committee, that this is an important plank in protecting the impartiality of broadcasting and democratic debate.” - Tessa Jowell. But does the system, in your opinion, successfully achieve those ends? That’s what I’m trying to find out. When we debate the idea in the U.S., the first argument naysayers come up with (after the First Amendment thing) is, “It won’t work, it can’t work, money always finds a way to buy influence.” ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2004, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-well-do-campaign-financing-systems-work-in-non-u-s-countries/264339/17 "2004-09-21T17:22:02Z")
> [@](#): > > But does the system, in your opinion, successfully achieve those ends? By and large, yes. The _only_ political influence the parties have on _me_ is via news reports/interviews or by the newspaper/poster/leaflet/doorstepping/megaphone methods allowed here. If there is some enormous money pit which the parties or their corporate benefactors are pouring money into, it’s certainly not worth the money they’re spending unless it’s something incredibly subtle like subliminal messages or government mind-rays. As for the political influence those corporate interests night have on _politicians_, there are also limits on what those parties can receive, and it must all be declared. Also, the media here are _very_ quick to point to possible “sleaze”, to the extent that it is questionable whether or not it is really _worth_ the money. The most famous example was that of a motor racing promoter called Bernie Ecclestone giving a large contribution to the Labour party in exchange for motor racing being exempt from a tobacco advertising ban. The ban was eventually introduced anyway - money certainly didn’t “find a way” in the long run. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2004, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-well-do-campaign-financing-systems-work-in-non-u-s-countries/264339/18 "2004-09-21T17:30:43Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > By and large, yes. The _only_ political influence the parties have on _me_ is via news reports/interviews or by the newspaper/poster/leaflet/doorstepping/megaphone methods allowed here. If there is some enormous money pit which the parties or their corporate benefactors are pouring money into, it’s certainly not worth the money they’re spending unless it’s something incredibly subtle like subliminal messages or government mind-rays. > > As for the political influence those corporate interests night have on _politicians_, there are also limits on what those parties can receive, and it must all be declared. Also, the media here are _very_ quick to point to possible “sleaze”, to the extent that it is questionable whether or not it is really _worth_ the money. The most famous example was that of a motor racing promoter called Bernie Ecclestone giving a large contribution to the Labour party in exchange for motor racing being exempt from a tobacco advertising ban. The ban was eventually introduced anyway - money certainly didn’t “find a way” in the long run. Boy, are you lucky! That’s sure not how it works here! From _The Next American Nation,_ by Michael Lind (The Free Press, 1995), pp. 256-259: > [@](#): > > Campaign financing is by far the most important mechanism for overclass influence in government. The real two-party system in the United States consists of the party of voters and the tiny but influential party of donors. The donor party in the United States is made up of an extraordinarily small number of citizens. In 1988, according to one study, only 10.2 percent of the American public made a contribution to a candidate, party, or partisan group. . . . The group of large political donors is a still more exclusive club. According to a study by Citizen Action, in the 1989-90 election cycle only 179,677 individual donors gave contributions greater than $200 to a federal candidate, political action committee (PAC), or party: “Thirty-four percent of the money spent by federal candidates was directly contributed by no more than one-tenth of one percent of the voting age population.” One may reasonably doubt that this one tenth of one percent is representative of the electorate or the population at large. > > \ > > Special interests buy favors from congressmen and presidents through political action committees (PACs), devices by which groups like corporation, professional associations, trade unions, investment banking groups – can pool their money and give $10,000 per election to each House and Senate candidate. Today there are more than 4,000 Political Action Committees (PACs) of various kinds registered with the Federal Election Commission; in 1974, when they were sanctioned by law, there were only 500. PAC money is driving campaign costs to new heights. In 1992, the average Senate incumbent spent more than $3.6 million for re-election; that is the equivalent of raising $12,000 a week in a single six-year term. Members of Congress, by comparison, spend only an average of $557,403 to be re-elected – a “mere” $5,000 a week for a two-year term. The average cost of a House campaign has risen to this level from $140,000 in 1980 – and $52,000 in 1974. > > The chief beneficiaries of rising campaign costs and PAC contributions have been incumbents. In 1972, 52 cents of the average PAC dollar went to incumbents, compared to 25 cents to challengers (the rest went to candidates for open seats); in the 1988 House elections, incumbents received 84.4 cents of each PAC dollar and challengers only 8.6 cents. It makes more sense for lobbies to buy access to established members of Congress and senators – particularly those with important leadership positions – than to fund challengers, who, if elected, would have no seniority and little influence. . . . Former Senator Barry Goldwater has lamented, “The Founding Fathers would frown in their graves if they saw us rationing candidacies sheerly on the basis of money: who has – or can raise – the millions necessary to run for office.” > > Democrats, when they were members of the majority party, received more PAC money than Republicans, though both parties are saturated with it. Contrary to conservative claims that liberal lobby groups dominate Congress, PAC funds come overwhelmingly from business: in 1990, 65 percent of PAC contributions came from business PACs, compared to 24 percent from labor and only 11 percent from ideological groups (including conservative as well as liberal pressure groups). “At one point,” John Judis has pointed out, “the American Petroleum Institute employed more lobbyists in Washington than the entire labor movement.” > > One of the effects of the postpartisan PAC system is to weaken the link between members of Congress and senators and the districts and states they are supposed to represent. Out-of-state money from special interests often flowes into House and Senate elections. This means that many senators are, in effect, at-large representatives of free-spending national business constituencies. > > Some argue that special-interest expenditures have no significiant influence on public policy. If all of this money is not buying special favors from congressmen and senators, a great many groups and individuals who are otherwise careful with their resources are acting in a highly irrational manner, year after year.