Rossi 1

Harold Laswell may have defined politics best when he said, Politics is
who gets what, when, and how. Underlying this definition, there are several key
components that can contribute to a specific official gaining the what, the
when, and the how. One vital factor that overshadows this definition,
especially within the political arena, is money. Essentially, how does money
affect each political candidate and members of Congress and how does money
affect the comprehension of reality? This question has been the focal point of
controversy and debated during many elections, and a question that will gain
more attention within the overall scope of this argument. Money has been a
driving force in elections and in Congress, so much so that it flirts with issues of
democracy. Is there too much money? There are many political advantages that
the side with money obtains, some of which will be explored in this essay.
Money allows a candidate to gain credibility. Money allows candidates to have
strong infrastructure to put forth a successful campaign. Money also allows for
communication within the electorate, a vital medium for candidates in order to
gain office. In short, money is necessary, but not always sufficient enough to
win. Going forward, what happens when the notion of unlimited sums of money
are put into play in hopes of influencing elections and members of Congress?
What ultimately happens is the political playing field is tilted, putting much weight
on the candidates or organizations with the most money, while at the same time
the notion of democracy is being destroyed.
In this paper I will construct an analysis of two particular Supreme Court
casesBuckley v. Valeo and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

Rossi 2
and ultimately argue that the democracy in which our nation was built is directly
being challenged. Specifically, I will isolate the key premises in first Buckley v.
Valeo while actively relating it to a 1992 Senate election (after the Buckley
decision) and the entire sphere of the donations that were made legal by the
ruling. Moving back and forth between court logic and the results of this election
will allow one to notice the lack of accuracy that this court case has on reality.
Then, I will challenge the Citizens United decision using the National Rifle
Association (NRA) as an example. Particularly, I will argue that NRA money
allows for the organization to produce wins in Congress. While respectfully
taking into consideration opposing viewpoints that money is needed in todays
campaigns, I still argue there is too much money in Americas political election
campaigns and the allotment of money that is found in Super PACs. Money
strips our elections and legislation process of our strong democratic visions while
the nations wealthiest individuals and organizations are essentially buying wins
and pushing particular agendas, such as gun rights by the NRA.
Before actually analyzing these court cases, it is important to briefly visit
and understand the principal ideas of each case. Before Buckley v. Valeo in
1976, some laws on campaign finance of the 1970s capped expenditures for
federal races, capped individual contributions and PAC donations, capped
independent expenditures by individuals and PACs, and established disclosure
laws and the Federal Election Commission (FEC).1 In the court case Buckley v.
Valeo, the Supreme Court denied several parts of the campaign finance law as it

Cook, Zachary. "Money and Politics." Chicago. . Lecture.

Rossi 3
violated the First Amendment, while upholding other portions. For example, the
cap on independent expenditures by individuals and PACs was denied because
it was in violation of freedom of speech, however, expenditures cannot be directly
coordinated with candidates. Furthermore, it is important to recognize the
difference between expenditure and contribution. The Court held that campaign
expenditures were core political speech, but a limit on the amount of campaign
contributions only marginally restricted a contributors ability to send a message
of support for a candidate. Thus, expenditures were entitled to greater
constitutional contributions than contributions.2 Independent expenditures to a
candidate are considered more personal in terms of speech because they are
geared towards independent campaign tools, such as advertising to support a
candidate. Contributions, however, are considered more general in the greater
scheme of political processes, namely because they are allowing the candidate
to spend the money given for his or her own campaign.
Going forward, and even before the court case of Citizens United, voters
were now feeling a sense of uncertainty of their elected officials hearing their
voices on certain issues. In other words, voters across America felt that special
interest groups and their money contributions were ultimately controlling
Congress. A Gordon S. Black poll conducted in May of 1992 found that 74% of
voters believed that Congress is largely owned by the special interest groups,
or lobbyists. Furthermore, another 83% agreed that PACs who contribute to
political campaigns have a bigger impact on government than do the voters.
2Hasen,

Richard L. "The Nine Lives of Buckley v. Valeo." Loyola Law School

(2010): 19. Print.

Rossi 4
Finally, 85% of votes think that candidate loyalty can essentially be bought and
special interest groups have a good amount of influence over elected officials.3
To put actual figures into play in order to observe how money has become
a prominent issue in the political arena, I will show the increase in spending for
congressional campaigns since 1974 (after Buckley) to 1992. In the 1976
election cycle, spending in Senate races jumped enormously from a total of
$38.1 million to an extraordinary $210.8 million in 1992. More interesting,
though, and a central piece to this argument is illuminated fundamentally
because winners of Senate races spent a meek average of $610,026 in 1976 to
a boastful $3.8 million. Similar colossal jumps in the House are also present
House winners spent approximately $87,000 in 1976 to a close $550,00 in 1992.4
As a specific example, I will use the 1992 highly competitive Senate race
in Oregon between Republican Bob Packwood and Democrat Les AuCoin. In
the midst of the 1992 election cycle, this election was sought out to be one of the
toughest for Packwood to defend as he was facing AuCoin, a tough competitor.
However, after the Democratic Primary, AuCoin was virtually depleted of his
campaign funds. On the other hand, Packwood carried an impressive $3.2
million into the general election. Remember that in Buckley, the Court denied the
provision that there must be a cap on individual expenditures by individuals or
PACs. Lawyers and law firms contributed $150,975, and Pro-Israel industries
contributed $144,586 to fuel his campaign. At the same time, Packwoods top
3

Wertheimer, Fred, and Susan Manes. "Campain Finance Reform: A Key To

Restoring The Health Of Our Democracy." Columbia Law Review 94.4 (1994):
1130. Print.
4
See Footnote 3.

Rossi 5
contributors, which includes contributions from employees, family members,
PACs, etc., were Time Warner and Will and Emery McDermott, who contributed
$45,000 and $16,000, respectively.5 It is necessary to note that these lump
sums were considered independent expenditures, since individual and PACs
contributions were capped under Buckley. A prime example of this can be found
in Sheldon G. Adelsons individual contribution. Adelson only gave Bob
Packwoods campaign $2,000, a weak, but legally maximum, contribution
compared to the sums of money he contributes today to Super PACs who
backed Mitt Romney.6
Les AuCoin, on the other hand, did not raise anywhere near the amount of
money his opponent did, which ultimately led him to defeat. Lawyers and law
firms only maxed out at a contribution just short of $92,000, and while
Packwoods top contributor maxed out at about $45,000, AuCoins top
contributor, Schnitzer Steel Industries failed to reach $13,000, a fraction of
Packwoods top contributor. 7 These uncapped individual expenditures, as ruled
in Buckley v. Valeo, play a critical role in the outcome of these political elections.
Because Packwood spent $5.4 million more than AuCoin in the Senate race, and
because the race was unpredictable and extremely close, the money raised was
the extra push Bob Packwood needed to win. Fundamentally, Packwoods

Influence Explorer. Sunlight Foundation, n.d. Web. 1 June 2013.

<http://influenceexplorer.com/politician/bobpackwood/b7d9ad04605d4c0686c44381bb575482?cycle=1992>.
6
See Footnote 5.
7
Influence Explorer. Sunlight Foundation, n.d. Web. 1 June 2013.
<http://influenceexplorer.com/politician/les-aucoind/d9ff17924f3d448e9724bf498eaf3137?cycle=1992>.

Rossi 6
collective sum of money raised reached about $8.2 million, which definitely aided
him in retaining his Senate seat.8 Without his contributors and the large sums of
money he raised for his political campaign thanks to the new provisions of
Buckley v. Valeo, we may have seen another Senator of Oregon in 1992.
Additionally, referring back to the 1992 Gordon S. Black poll that
concluded people feared lobbyists controlling elections and Congress, it is
interesting to note the differences in amounts of independent expenditures by
lobbyists for each candidate. Lobbyists for Les AuCoins campaign combined for
a total of $41,700, while lobbyists in Bob Packwoods corner peaked at $77,460,
over an 80% climbconclusively, helping Packwood preserve his Senator status
in Oregon giving more credit to Buckley v. Valeo and the new campaign finance
laws. According to Burt Neuborne, an ex-ACLU legal director, the ruling in
Buckley resulted in the distortion of Congress intent, imposed a regime on the
nation that no Congress would have ever enacted, and, most importantly, has
created a campaign finance system abhorred by virtually all political
participants.9
Since Buckley v. Valeo upheld the prerequisite of capping independent
contributions by individuals and PACs, it was not until 2010 when independent
expenditures by corporations, associations, or labor unions have become
uncapped as the Supreme Court case Citizens United v. Federal Election

Wertheimer, Fred, and Susan Manes. "Campain Finance Reform: A Key To

Restoring The Health Of Our Democracy." Columbia Law Review 94.4 (1994):
1132. Print.
9
Hasen, Richard L. "The Nine Lives of Buckley v. Valeo." Loyola Law School
(2010): 21. Print.

Rossi 7
Commission ruled that the First Amendment, or free speech, protects these
actions. Additionally, the Court stated it was not addressing the constitutionality
of contribution limitations, including the ban, going back to the early twentieth
century, on direct corporate contributions to candidates, showing the seemingly
immortal life of Buckley.10 In practice, because of Citizens United, labor unions
and large corporations are now allowed to pour unlimited amounts of money into
political campaigns advocating for a candidate or opposing another using any
medium of communication (television, radio, social networking, etc). This is
primarily due to the fact that the Court deemed corporations as people, and thus
allowing for unlimited spending and contributions to Super PACs.11
Also, before delving into the Courts decision on these laws and their
relevance in elections, it is extremely important to note that the Supreme Court
has equated money with speech since capped spending is in violation with the
First Amendment. In our political campaigns, the Supreme Court has now issued
a nationwide memo that one must have a substantial amount of money in order
to get his or her voice heard. When a politician is influenced by either the need
to solicit contributions from special interests to finance a costly election
campaign, or by a sense of obligation to benefactors, the politician may no longer
represent the interests of his or her entire constituency.12 Here, democratic
government is directly being challenged as it rejects the notion of one man, one
10
11

12

See Footnote 2.
Cook, Zachary. "Money and Politics." Chicago. . Lecture.

Santa Clara University. The Power of Money: The Ethics of Campaign

Finance Reform. <www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v3n2/money.html>.

Rossi 8
vote, since monetary means may have the ability to now decide outcomes of
elections other processes and special interest donors have greater power to
influence elections than the average voter.13 Since money can buy speech,
American people that can only offer just a voice, and not money, are essentially
muted.
According to the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, after
analyzing the rise of Super PACs from Citizens United, asked the question, Is it
a government by the people, or the best government money can buy? 14 Rather
than labeling the power of money in our governmental system as a partisan
issue, it must be recognized on a greater scale of overall democracy. Former
republican Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona once said of democratic
governance:
The fact that liberty depended on honest elections was of the utmost
importance to the patriots who founded our nation and wrote the
Constitution. They knew that corruption destroyed the prime requisite of
constitutional liberty, an independent legislature free from any influence
other than that of the people. Applying these principles to modern times,
we can make the following conclusions. To be successful, representative
government assumes that elections will be controlled by the citizenry at
large, not by those who give the most money. Electors must believe their
vote counts. Elected officials must owe their allegiance to the people, not

13

See Footnote 10.

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2012/may/money-influence-elections052112.html
14

Rossi 9
to their own wealth or to the wealth of interest groups who speak only for
the selfish fringes of the whole community.15
To many of the wealthy corporations and wealthy individuals advantage,
the floodgates for money expenditures have busted open as the 2012 election
cycle was not only be the most expensive election in U.S. history, but the cost
of 2012 elections tower[ed] over the next most expensive election by more than
$700 million.16 As a reflection of the Citizens United ruling, Sheila Krumholz, the
Center for Responsive Politics executive director, said, In the new campaign
finance landscape post-Citizens United, were seeing historic spending levels
spurred by outside groups dominated by a small number of individuals and
organizations making exceptional contributions.17
For example, in 2012 the National Rifle Association spent a sum of $20
million dollars on outside spending in the general election, which was made
possible by Citizens United v. FEC. Outside spending refers to the pouring of
unlimited independent expenditures or electioneering communications
(identifying a candidate in a specific advertisement) by profiled organizations in
order to influence elections.18 The NRA is a conservative PAC that raises money
in effort to fund and promote Republican campaigns, specifically supporting the

15

See Footnote 3.
Communications, 2012 Election Spending Will Reach $6 Billion, Center for
Responsive Politics Predicts, http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/10/2012election-spending-will-reach-6.html (October 2012).
17
See Footnote 6.
18
Cook, Zachary. "Money and Politics." Chicago. . Lecture.
16

Rossi 10
protection of the Second Amendment and every other form of gun control.19 The
NRA might be the sole reason that there essentially has not been any
reformative legislation for gun laws, especially after several instances of tragic
events, such as the school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, caused in part by
the use of assault weapons. According to Opensecrets.org, the NRA spent most
of its money against Democratic candidates in 2012, tipping out at about $13
million and change, and just spending under half of that total supporting
Republican candidates. Barack Obama was the recipient of the heaviest hit
Democrat by the NRA in 2012 with a total of $8 million being spent against his
campaign.
It is obvious that NRA money did not directly allow Mitt Romney to take
office in 2012, but it is money in general that shapes political governance and
really takes the emphasis off the literal meaning of win and dumps it more on the
internal indirect meaning of victoryleaving NRA money triumphant in 2012.
Decisively, the $8 million spent against Barack Obama by the NRA did not end in
defeat and the $3 million used for Mitt Romneys campaign did not gain him the
presidency; the effect of NRA money was still greatly successful. In short,
Citizens United gave organizations like the NRA excessive power over Congress,
enabling paradigm shifts in legislature regarding gun control.
Before exploring the effects NRA money had on gun control legislature, it
is important to understand that the NRA packs a wide array of firearm industries

19

OpenSecrets, National Rifle Assn,

http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/detail.php?cmte=National+Rifle+As
sn, (2013).

Rossi 11
and gun right activists with them, facilitating competitive lobbying procedures.
About twenty years separated proposals facing the Senate regarding gun control,
and in the preceding days before votes were disclosed, an overwhelming 90%
Americans supported background checks when purchasing firearms.20 However,
when votes were disclosed, there were six nays causing the piece of
legislature to fall short of the required 60 votes. Because of these results, it is
alarming to know the power that is exerted by active organizations, such as the
NRA, to dismantle crucial laws to protect the American peopleespecially after
the Sandy Hook tragedy when President Obama promised precise gun law
reformations.
The amount of money poured in to influence House, Senate, and
presidential races since 2000 by the NRA and its affiliates is beyond astounding.
These sums have reached a total of approximately $81 million. But what is more
disturbing about this number is that the Citizens United ruling did not even come
into effect until 2010; therefore, over half of that $81 million is in the shape of
independent expenditures since 2010 made possible by this court case.
Members of Congress know what the NRA is capable of doing and the kinds of
ads theyre capable of running, and especially if youre someone facing a close
election, you dont want hundreds of thousands and potentially millions of dollars
in advertising to go against you, says Lee Drutman, a scholar for gun money in

20

Berlow, Alan, and Gordon Witkin. "NRA Money, Power Responsible for
Swayed Gun Control." Huffington Post. N.p., 5 May 2013. Web. 1 June 2013.
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/01/nra-gun-control_n_3192671.html>.

Rossi 12
politics.21 It is no surprise that Senator Mark Pryor (D-Ar.), who is facing a
competitive re-election bids in 2014, voted against background checks for gun
purchases, rejecting the wide Democratic views of gun control and voted in
succession with the NRA. It is simple; big money, or in this case NRA money
can trump ideological identities for candidates within their party because
politicians will remain more responsive to the will of moneyed interests than the
average voter.22
While some may argue that is inconclusive whether NRA money actually
sways gun control legislatures or whether lobbyists can effect political action, I
argue that the fact there is too much money being poured into the political arena
allows for candidates to face tougher political factors aside from an opponents
direct ideologies. An example is seen through Senator Pryors case. Because of
his upcoming election in 2014, he did not want to test is luck in voting against
background checks. Since the Citizens United decision is fairly new, I estimate
that in coming elections, money being poured into elections and into Super PACs
will grow exponentially. Furthermore, it is clear that NRA money does not
directly push candidates into office as in 2012, the NRA spent almost $5 million
in 16 senate races, but only won 3 of them.23 At the same time, the NRA noted
that, both the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House will continue to have pro-gun
majorities and to mirror this statement, Alan Berlow and Gordon Witkin, authors
21
22

See Footnote 11.

Backer, Jonathan. "Why Big Money Still Won in 2012." Huffington Post. N.p., 8
May 2013. Web. 10 June 2013. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathanbacker/why-big-money-still-won-i_b_3237762.html>.
23
See Footnote 11.

Rossi 13
of the article NRA Money, Power Responsible For Swayed Gun Control Vote,
said The NRAs genius for convincing a substantial number of gun owners that
they are at Armageddons doorstep at any given moment has also been terrific
for the groups bottom line.24 Maybe the unfair wake of the Citizens United
decision will become more clear in elections to follow, but one aspect remains
true: The NRA was victorious on every gun vote cast in the recent Senate
debate and may have buried the chances for any gun control this year. I argue
that this is largely due to the new provision of campaign finance enabling
bottomless amounts of money to be poured into lobbying and Super PACs in
order to influence political candidates and Congress, which inevitably shadows
democratic ideals.
No matter what side one takes on this argument, one thing remains
constant: money matters. However, the line becomes blurry when asked how
much money can or should be invested in political campaigns and in Congress.
Both rulings in Buckley v. Valeo and Citizens United v. Federal Election
Commission have allowed for big moneyed individuals and organizations through
Super PACs to invade the political landscape and inherit our democratic political
arena. It has become extremely unfair that our current system of financing
political campaigns and pushing prominent issues, and in doing so our nations
democracy that we have cherished is being challenged. Money is speech, and
large organizations and corporations, such as the NRA, are seen as individuals.
Money speaks loudly, and the lack of it staples mouths shut.

24

See Footnote 11.