“Achilles Heel” of control by big campaign donors.

Campaign finance myths have disabled Congress and kept us locked in disfunction. Updated 1/18/25

You are deeply concerned about the dismal state of our democracy.

January 2025 update.

What if there is a simple, tested and relatively inexpensive fix that almost everyone is ignoring? Ignoring because most of us misunderstand the nature of our election system, how its weaknesses have been exploited and the “Achilles Heel” its exploiters desperately hope we continue to ignore.

That “fix” is a national Campaign Finance Voucher program. The cost of campaigns has grown so large that our elected Representatives and Senators spend most of their time seeking donations. The obvious downside is that they have very little time to work on the public business. Staff help but are no substitute for elected officials.

But that is not the biggest loss.

The biggest loss is the inability of Congress to do its intended job. Especially the job of representing the interests of all the people, not just those who can donate campaign finance money. There are many signs, but the 1/12/25 essay by George Will in the Washington Post is a good example: headline “The GOP Has Congress. So What?” His point: Only the President, not Congress, has real power and that for never more than 2 years at a time. That 2-year lease on power reflects a public becoming more and more disgusted with the results.

[1/13/25 Notes to readers on this multipart series of essays

• This essay, originally published January 2024, sketches out the basic concepts underlying my advocacy for a national Campaign Finance Voucher program. It was written in the hope that the voucher concept would be picked up by influencers and used as the basis of an effective 2024 Democratic campaign. I failed. Instead, they ran on the usual set of old promises that could not inspire and was a dismal failure. The essay was updated in May to clarify how the costs of a voucher program (if any) would fall primarily on the wealthy. It is updated now (January 2025) to conform its content to our current circumstances.

• The second part (May 2024), has details explaining how a national program would work, including defense of some potentially controversial aspects: https://michaelfoxworth.substack.com/p/national-democracy-dollars-details

• In January 2025, given the obvious inability of the Democrats to comprehend the reason for their abysmal performance in November, I published a third essay on a proposed approach to “use” Trump’s weaknesses to achieve a reversal of fortune. The essay has a deliberately provocative title (that I’m beginning to regret), but Campaign Vouchers are a crucial part of the proposed “solution”. https://michaelfoxworth.substack.com/p/biden-should-pardon-trump

It is clear that the public knows we have a problem.

Gallup shows concerns about government have been at or next to the top of its “top problem” list for the past decade (https://news.gallup.com/poll/505385/gov-no-guns-crime-top-problem.aspx)

April 2023 Gallup list of Top Problems

There are many issues where popular will has been frustrated (abortion, guns, tax laws favoring the rich, etc.). All within the context of young people unable to afford to raise a child, massive health and education debt and most middle-aged people lacking a viable financial path to retirement. Looking at the other items on Gallup’s most recent 10 top problem list we see that except “unity” and “morality”, all of the bottom nine fall most heavily on less prosperous households. Biden ran for reelection by saying “elect me” to preserve “Democracy”. Those most directly affected by the other 7 problems may feel justified in wondering what the past 30-years of “democracy” have brought them. For many of Trump’s most loyal followers it feels like less to eat and more distain to swallow. Trump promises to be “king” and, like the ancient Israelites, much of the public is saying “Give us a king!”

While the public’s feelings of neglect came to a head with the Great Recession of 2008 (see the New Yorker article on the effects of the crisis and its aftermath https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/09/17/the-real-cost-of-the-2008-financial-crisis), the disconnect between politicians and the bulk of the public traces back to the 1990s. We have a dysfunctional Congress, a disrespected Supreme Court and a Presidency usually limited to Executive Actions.

The immense growth of “Independents” as a voting bloc highlights the public’s lack of faith in either party’s ability to tackle these issues.

If you lean Republican, why have faith that Trump will do any better than he did the first time? He was right that “the system is rigged”. He said he would drain the swamp, but his only real accomplishment was to cut taxes on the fat cats and elites. The same people Trump’s most loyal followers despise.

If you lean Democratic or are an independent, probably utterly disgusted by Trump, why would you have had any faith that things will be different after a Democratic win in 2024? Biden and the Democrats seemed to repeat calls for popular policies that they had not been able to deliver for 30 years.

A way forward blocked by misunderstandings.

There is a way to inspire the public to put faith in democracy. It requires out-of-the-box thinking and probably, unfortunately, some painful Mea Culpa style truth-telling (i.e., courage) by our leaders (elected, running or in the Press).

That way forward can take advantage of something the public already “knows”: they are deeply suspicious of campaign finance. Surveys show they think campaign money might be involved, somehow, in explaining their unhappiness with our government. But does the public really understand the issue? I argue that they do not.

What if some commonly held notions (“misunderstandings”) are wrong? What if their implicit acceptance is leading many in the wrong direction? Including most of those who share this concern and are actively working to change things?

Let me list the main misunderstandings, things that sound true but are not true or are only half true: 1. Vast amounts of money are being spent on campaign finance. 2. The rich can always win an election by just pouring in more money. 3. There’s always been money in politics, so this is nothing new. 4. Politicians are corrupt. 5. Campaign money is evil and so are Big Donors. 6. We need more small donors to get fair policies. By grappling directly with these misunderstandings, a carefully constructed political campaign could make progress. But to be convincing, a campaign would require truth-telling about what most office holders have found necessary to survive under the prevalent finance system. Along with a bit of JFK-style “Ask Not!” rhetoric about a complacent public’s thinking that “freedom is free”. Can we inspire our “leaders” to trust the public and take the heat from admitting their past participation in “the old way” of finding the money needed to run campaigns?

Pushback on those misunderstandings:

• Misunderstanding 1: Vast amounts of money are being spent on campaign finance. Response: No!! Less than one tenth of one percent of GNP. According to Open Secrets, $10 Billion in 2022. Our country spends more on Netflix! Reform advocates struggling to pull in small dollars (Common Cause, etc.) see these few billions as massive. I think their perspective is colored by those fund-raising struggles. Instead, we see pleas for miracles (“A Constitutional Amendment to overturn Citizens United”, etc.). A federal campaign finance voucher program (analogous to what Seattle has done) could put the power to donate amounts matching those few billions into the hands of voters (roughly $50–100 each). That would balance the effect of big donors. It would allow politicians to refocus on policy instead of spending their time fundraising and, in the case of Republican ones, fearing a donor-financed primary fight. With a big enough win in 2024 by pro-Democracy forces (Democratic and responsible Republicans), it would have been trivial to trim some tax breaks for the rich that would pay for vouchers. Even if paid for by an increase in regular tax rates, the typical middle-income taxpayer would see an increase of about $2 a year (the cost of a cup of coffee at McDonalds). In other words, it’s not that the big donors are spending too much. It’s more that “the rest of us” are spending much too little. (Update: a respondent expressed skepticism about the “$2 a year” cost. Median taxpayers earning ~$70K or less are in low marginal tax rates. Most of the taxes used to pay that $10 billion, as with any program, would come from higher income families. Indeed, the wealthy would need to give up a few more cups of coffee. Divide a $2 trillion federal budget by 125 million households we get an "average" of $16K taxes paid. Median/average households pay nothing like that. Adding $10 billion and you get a trivial increase in taxes for Median/average households. Unlike the income tax, the “burden” on the average household from the banking policy stupidity that led to the 2008 recession was not progressive at all. Nor will the “burden” from the repeat banking crisis that is currently brewing because political leaders of both parties are afraid to lose campaign money from the megabanks.)

Our $24 trillion economy is being led by the nose by the rich and elites spending a relatively small amount of money, a few billions. (own drawing)

• misunderstanding 2: The Rich can always win an election by just pouring in more money! Response: • No! Money is needed for visibility. With enough visibility, more money does not guarantee a win. Just look at what happened in Seattle, where a campaign finance voucher program has completely transformed municipal political life. Google made a lavishly funded attempt to get its favored candidates onto the city council and the public rejected them.

• Misunderstanding 3: This is nothing new; there’s always been money in politics. Response: No! Before the 1990s, fundraising did not control policy. Now it does. When primaries replaced nominating conventions, campaigns slowly became far more expensive. The poor can vote but cannot donate. With primaries that distinction became key. In the 1990s, the Republicans, under Gingrich, found they could satisfy their growing need for cash by emphasizing cultural differences. By the early 2000s the threat of “being primaried” was tightening slavery chains around most Republican politicians (look up that phrase or see Lee Drutman’s analysis on NewAmerica.org). In the 1990s, a cash-challenged Democratic party stepped onto the path of becoming Republican-lite. While Biden certainly tried to change the focus, need-for-cash kept most Democratic office holders stuck on a daily hunt for the donor-class. Enslaved, like most Republicans, to work in their party’s fund-raising cubicles. The Democrats’ past and current need for corporate and successful/elite cash shows up in (1) Clinton’s ending “welfare as we know it” (2) repeal of Glass-Steagall and mis-regulation of financial firm fraud and recklessness (giving us the 2008 recession and tender treatment of those responsible) (3) The growing fragility of our too-big-to-fail banking system (will democracy survive another Great Recession?) (4) no response (until Trump woke everyone up) to the hollowing out of our rural industrial base (5) an immigration system that puts all its weight on “stopping people at the border” while never holding employers personally to account for willingly employing undocumented workers.

• Misunderstanding 4: Politicians are Corrupt. Response: No! Most are prisoners, essentially slaves, of a corrupt system. A system that subjects them to control by donors and parties rather than voters. With vouchers in hand, the voters would have their control restored.

• Misunderstanding 5: Campaign money is evil and so are Big Donors. Response: No! Campaign money is needed to inform the public about issues. Donors want to be heard. With primaries, money just shifted effective power away from general election voters and gave it to donors. Especially special interest donors.

• Misunderstanding 6: We need more small donors to get fair policies. Their well-meaning donations won’t bias policy. Response: No, they can bias policy!! Successful people (conservative or progressive) “wear different shoes.” People successful enough to both follow issues and donate are not truly representative of those who aren’t. Good intentions are no substitute for lived experience. For instance, people who did well with 401(K) and Roth IRAs (and never felt compelled to “borrow” from their future retirement) find both systems very satisfactory. Most voters, including the MAGA ones, are left simply wondering how to pay for retirement and are virtually invisible to politicians trying to raise money. “Donation matching schemes” designed to encourage “small donations” still mostly recruit the successful and elites. To get a truly representative sample of “small” will take something like vouchers to minimize the price of participation by all segments of the population.

Free of misunderstandings, the way forward.

I suggest that the right ideas, presented by the right people (especially political leaders willing to take the heat for their participation in past campaign finance and acknowledge the damage; I was hoping Biden in 2024) could lead us out of our current political mess. A national Campaign Finance Voucher program would require an almost trivial budget cost. $10 billion in a $2000 billion (i.e. 2 trillion) federal budget? That is a pittance compared to the trillions lost world-wide in the Great Recession or the massive losses we are experiencing with unaddressed climate change. Or losing the first Democracy since the Romans lost theirs to rich guys’ greed.

The attempts to spread the “Seattle model” to other areas have been fiercely opposed by special interests. They clearly see vouchers (along with ranked vote election methods) as an existential threat to big donor control of government. I focus here on vouchers first, since vouchers could be implemented directly by the federal government while ranked choice voting will require state-by-state implementation.

You can do your own research. Look at Seattle’s voucher program. The book Democracy Dollars by Tom Latkowski is good (the Amazon Kindle version only costs a dollar). Better, read my May Substack post (referenced above) about how a federal voucher program could work. Read about the opposition that threatened Republican donors have put up to vouchers elsewhere.

Ask yourself “What if the responses about the 6 misunderstandings are basically correct?” Especially the first one. Come up with your own analysis. I think you will find significant explanatory power.

When I did my analysis, I came up with a long essay and then a couple of YouTube videos. I argue that a federal voucher program should be configured with some significant differences from that used in Seattle. The 17-minute version of my YouTube:

As mentioned above, I published a post with details about how a voucher program could work.