It’s legal to spend any amount of personal wealth— even millions of dollars, as some do— to fund your own campaign in a federal election; there are no limits. In 1976, a right-wing, corporately-oriented Supreme Court struck down (in Buckley v Valeo) provisions in the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 that limited campaign contributions from personal funds.
In his dissent, Justice Byron White wrote that he disagreed with the majority’s ruling that limiting the amount of personal wealth that a candidate and his family may spend on his campaign, violates the Constitution. “Although it is true that this provision does not promote any interest in preventing the corruption of candidates, the provision does, nevertheless, serve salutary purposes related to the integrity of federal campaigns. By limiting the importance of personal wealth, § 608(a) helps to assure that only individuals with a modicum of support from others will be viable candidates. This in turn would tend to discourage any notion that the outcome of elections is primarily a function of money. Similarly, § 608(a) tends to equalize access to the political arena, encouraging the less wealthy, unable to bankroll their own campaigns, to run for political office. Since the contribution and expenditure limitations are neutral as to the content of speech and are not motivated by fear of the consequences of the political speech of particular candidates or of political speech in general, this case depends on whether the nonspeech interests of the Federal Government in regulating the use of money in political campaigns are sufficiently urgent to justify the incidental effects that the limitations visit upon the First Amendment interests of candidates and their supporters.”
Thurgood Marshall also dissented: “One of the points on which all Members of the Court agree is that money is essential for effective communication in a political campaign. It would appear to follow that the candidate with a substantial personal fortune at his disposal is off to a significant ‘head-start.’ Of course, the less wealthy candidate can potentially overcome the disparity in resources through contributions from others. But ability to generate contributions may itself depend upon a showing of a financial base for the campaign or some demonstration of preexisting support, which, in turn, is facilitated by expenditures of substantial personal sums. Thus, the wealthy candidate's immediate access to a substantial personal fortune may give him an initial advantage that his less wealthy opponent can never overcome. And even if the advantage can be overcome, the perception that personal wealth wins elections may not only discourage potential candidates without significant personal wealth from entering the political arena, but also undermine public confidence in the integrity of the electoral process.”
Can there be any doubt that the use of personal wealth to fund your own campaign is an affront to the idea of equality of opportunity? When wealthy individuals can self-fund their campaigns, it creates an uneven playing field where those with significant personal wealth have an advantage over candidates who rely on grassroots fundraising or public financing. This perpetuates inequalities in political representation, as it deters qualified candidates from running if they lack personal wealth or access to wealthy donors. These self-funded candidates aren’t reliant on donations from grassroots supporters and are instead influenced by their own financial interests or those of other wealthy individuals or special interest groups. This raises questions about whose interests the candidate represents and whether they are truly accountable to their constituents, undermining democratic principles by concentrating political power and influence in the hands of a wealthy elite and eroding what’s left of public trust in the political process and reinforcing perceptions of a system that prioritizes the interests of the wealthy few over the needs of the broader population.
The ability of wealthy individuals to self-fund their campaigns also limits diversity in political representation by disproportionately favoring candidates from privileged backgrounds. This invariably perpetuates disparities in representation based on factors such as race, gender, socioeconomic status and life experience. That's why there have always been too many rich, conservative old white men making our laws.
Last week, Open Secrets took a look at the big 2024 self-funders trying to buy seats. All of them are conservatives, most are Republicans but the biggest spender— by far— is Maryland New Dem/scumbag David Trone who had already put over $23 million of his own into trying to buy a Senate seat. These are the 10 worst so far:
David Trone (D-MD)- $23,271,000
Rick Scott (R-FL)- $7,757,275
Matt Dolan (R-OH)- 7,000,000
Gil Cisneros (New Dem-CA)- $4,356,600
Bernie Moreno (R-OH)- $3,000,000
Robin Ficker (R-MD), disbarred attorney and perennial vanity candidate- $2,634,835
John Rust (R-IN)- $2,500,000 (kicked off the ballot last week)
Shri Thanedar (New Dem-MI)- $2,150,000
Kelly Daughtry (R-NC)- $2,060,132
Sid Mahant (R-IN)- $2,000,000
The Open Secrets report found that among big self-funders there are 36 Republicans an and 14 Democrats this cycle. Self-funders have spent $94 million on their campaigns so far.
Other big self-funders in House races we're watching include:
Peter Dixon (D-CA-16)- $1,535,456
Ben Savage (D-CA-30)- $1,327,000
Geoffrey Grammer (D-MD-06)- $220,000