Kenneth P. Vogel's Big Money

In his book, Big Money: 2.5 Billion Dollars, One Suspicious Vehicle, and a Pimp- on the Trail of the Ultra-Rich Hijacking American Politics, author Kenneth P. Vogel writes on the newly less regulated, and arguably more corrupt relationship between the American political system and big money donors. In this response paper I will address the main questions in relation to the text. One, which Supreme Court decision allowed for the rise in “Big Money’s” influence over the American political system? Two, how did the Supreme Court decision addressed in question one change both the American political landscape and the fundraising techniques used by those involved in political fundraising? And third, how did the Republicans and Democrats each respond in 2012 to “Big Money” in the American political system. I will follow the answers to these questions with a later section in my paper devoted to a personal response to Vogel’s text, as well as connections between his text and broader topic discussed in our Interest Groups class lectures. Addressing the first question set forth in my introduction, the Supreme Court decision that allowed for the rise of “Big Money’s” influence over the American political system is the infamous
ruling in the Citizens United vs. Federal Elections Commission court case in 2010. The ruling struck down regulations on political spending by outside groups like corporations and unions that had been set in place in an earlier 2002 bill that limited the amount of money political parties and committees could accept from donors. In Big Money, Vogel writes on the subject of the Citizens United ruling in regards to earlier restrictions on political spending by outside groups that, “a 5-4 majority of justices ruled the restrictions to be an unconstitutional infringement on free speech, and without such limitations, corporations and labor unions could spend as much as they wanted on aggressive advertising (16).” The Citizens United ruling was not the end of the rollbacks on earlier political spending regulation the judicial branch would pursue in 2010. According to Vogel, “two months later, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision that was lower-profile but profound in impact. It allowed individuals (as well as unions and corporations) to give as much as they wanted to a new breed of independent political committee that came to be known as a super PAC (16).” Super PACs can spend as much as they want to fund political attack ads, as long as they are not themselves affiliated with a certain candidate, a specific candidates’ campaign, or any type of political party. As one could imagine, allowing super PACs to spend as much as they wanted on political advertising drastically changed the American political landscape. The biggest changes occurred in relation to the fundraising for political campaigns. Regulations on the amount of money individual donors or groups can give to individual candidates, and political parties remain in place today with limits of $5,000 allowed in donations directly to a candidate, and $30,800 allowed in donations to a political party directly. Because of these limits, mega donors saw the newly deregulated super PACs as a smarter investment to get their voice heard politically. According to Vogel this significantly altered the American political process because, “it introduced the idea that a single ultra-donor, or a well-connected consultant with the ears of a handful of mega-donors, could fundamentally shift a campaign for the U.S. presidency, not to mention a handful of Senate or governors’ races or dozens of House race (16).” But how does this change in political committee cause a shift in political races at so many different levels? Well, if you have a well funded super PAC that while separate from a candidate, shares his ideals, or dislikes an opponent of said candidate, you can blanket an area where an election is occurring with attack ads targeting the super PPACs preferred candidates opponent, or advertisements advocating for a certain issue that their preferred candidate supports because you have the large amounts of money needed to constantly run these political advertisements compared to political parties, or candidates campaigns that still have monetary limits. In response to the changes made to the financing of political committees in relation to elections, and campaigns, the Republican and Democratic parties have both had to learn to adapt to the new super PAC dominated American political system. In 2012 the biggest change the Republican party had to deal with in regard to campaign finance reform was the “Civil War” as Vogel put it, between the incumbent Establishment Republicans and the Tea Party candidates that challenged them. These Tea Party candidate challengers saw significant support from big money super PACs, which led to the formation of other super PACs that supported the establishment incumbent candidates, culminating into what could almost be described as a “Big Money” arms race. A similar trend could be seen on the Democratic side of the political spectrum as well, with a split beginning to appear between donors who supported more centrist, pro-business democratic candidates, and the candidates farther to left (Vogel specifically mentions Elizabeth Warren as this type of candidate). Within both parties’ conflicts the main issue became that because of the Citizens United ruling and campaign finance reform, a handful of mega-donors could now pick candidates that shared their ideologies and support them in order to compete with candidates chosen by the establishment within the parties. Overall, while an informative and entertaining read, I cannot help but think Vogel’s Big Money is a little biased in it’s approach.
Now don’t get me wrong, I am a self identifying liberal democrat who dislikes the Koch Brothers as much as the next leftist, but I feel that Vogel spent much more of his text grilling the right wing “Big Money” without addressing the problem of it on the left to the same degree. Again, I understand Vogel does spend some time addressing “Big Money” issues on the left, especially while talking about the Clintons, but the criticism does not come off as harsh as it does when compared to his criticism of rightwing mega-donors. Personally, I believe “Big Money” in politics is just as dangerous on the left as it is on the
right. When connecting Big Money to a topic covered in class, the obvious connect I make is to our sixth lecture of the semester on patrons. During that lecture George Soros was brought up, as he was in Vogel’s text, as well as some figures on how much he has donated to several interest groups over several years. Later in the lecture we were asked the question if it was okay for one person to have a large amount of influence over a group because they donate a large amount of funding to the group? This question can be applied to the mega-donors and their super PACs, is it right for a handful of these donors to be able to support candidates that the established party wouldn’t consider in some cases, and influence political agendas because of their wealth? I think it is a question that Americans should think long and hard about before it becomes too late to make a change.