Presidential elections should ideally reflect the will of the people. However, considering the influence of campaign financing, lobbying activities, and various interest groups on presidential candidates, questions arise regarding the functioning of democracy, especially in the United States.
In today’s political landscape, Americans are increasingly seen not as the principal actors in their democracy but rather as spectators. This shift is notably evident as we approach the 2024 elections, where the discourse often centres on questioning the suitability of the candidates rather than their governance capabilities. This trend may lay the groundwork for a shift in the United States’ long-term political culture and structural dynamics.
In the Federalist Papers, James Madison posited that interest groups are an inherent element of democracy, believing that a republic could effectively manage its influence. Lobbying, deeply integrated into the fabric of the Constitution and democratic participation, holds a significant role by contributing expertise and information. However, the practice of lobbying has increasingly been perceived as a potential threat to democratic ideals, straying from Madison’s original vision.
Powerful lobbying groups like the gun lobby (NRA) and the pharmaceutical lobby (PhRMA) protect their sectoral interests, often at the expense of average Americans, by threatening their interests on critical issues like healthcare and gun violence.
Undoubtedly, in the political life of the United States, the actions of lobby groups, the connections of SuperPAC, and concepts such as ‘dark money’ are, for most segments of society, far from being debatable concepts or seen as separate issues. However, in essence, ‘money, group, politician, policy, and action’ should be considered inseparable concepts.
The U.S. election system is built on a structure where candidates need large campaign budgets. Especially after the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, allowing corporations, unions, and other organizations to make unlimited donations to election campaigns, election spending reached astronomical figures. The 2020 election, which exceeded $14 billion, became the most expensive election in history, and the 2024 election spending will surpass it.
The large influx of funds into election campaigns transforms them into strategic battlegrounds. Trump’s main narrative, amidst his legal challenges, centres on allegations of a “deep state” conspiracy against him. This narrative resonates with his supporters and bolsters his campaign contributions, which rise in tandem with his legal entanglements. By May 31, Trump raised approximately $200 million for his campaign and allied committees. Only 4% of Trump’s campaign donations came from contributions over $2000, while 30% came from donations under $200.
Analysing the connection between Trump and his voter base, as well as the dynamics of this relationship, will be crucial in understanding the ‘disaffected masses’ within the U.S. Trump’s relationship with his base brought him the keys to the Oval Office in the 2016 Presidential Election and prompted an insurrection in 2020. The 2024 elections will again be a test in this regard.
For Democrats, questions about President Joe Biden’s age and health increased after the presidential debate. Unlike Trump, Biden’s campaign donations predominantly came from contributions over $2000, roughly seven times more than Trump’s in that segment. Many Democratic voters, who initially supported Biden as a bulwark against threats to the country’s strategic goals, faced a turning point after the debate on June 27. Succumbing to pressure from campaign donors, Biden decided to withdraw from the presidential race. Thus, a candidate who had secured the backing of over 3,800 delegates through extensive campaign funding was ultimately forced out of the race due to fears of losing those crucial financial resources.
Another two important indicators in campaign donations will be examining the campaigns of two other names challenging the main candidates. After Biden and Trump, the most funded person is Trump’s Republican primary rival, Nikki Haley. About 49% of Haley’s campaign donations came from contributions over USD 2000. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who became an independent candidate after withdrawing from the Democratic primaries, received about 38% of his total campaign funds from Gavin de Becker, who was appointed to the Presidential Advisory Board by the conservative Republican President Ronald Reagan in two different terms.
The donations collected by presidential candidates undoubtedly shape their policies. Trump’s strict immigration policies negatively impacted the dependence on foreign workers in the technology and agriculture sectors. Restrictions on programs like H1-B visas have led to labour shortages in these sectors. Therefore, many companies in these sectors turned to Biden’s more moderate immigration policies. Looking at the rising trend of anti-illegal immigration, Americans might become more sensitive to the influence of big corporate policies on national policies in the future.
The impact of lobbying and major donors in the United States highlights a troubling trend for its democracy. Despite its strong democratic foundations, the influence of these groups’ risks diminishing public control over the political process, potentially sidelining the broader electorate’s will.
This undue influence can undermine the autonomy of elected officials and may disproportionately marginalise lower socio-economic groups. The upcoming 2024 elections could serve as a critical juncture for addressing these issues, underscoring the importance of reevaluating the role of money in politics to ensure it doesn’t overpower the voice of the people.
