The Party Revival: A New Era of Campaign Finance?

The Supreme Court’s decision in National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission has sparked a lively debate about the future of campaign finance in American democracy. On June 30, the Court struck down federal limits on the amount of money that political parties can spend in coordination with individual federal candidates.

This decision has been hailed by some as a victory for big money and criticized by others as an attempt to revive the party system. However, this narrative may be overly simplistic. In recent years, campaign-finance reforms have focused on curbing the power of parties in elections, elevating small-dollar donors to prominence instead.

Critics argue that this approach has created new problems. By prioritizing small donors over parties, we may have addressed one type of bias – the influence of wealth – but neglected or worsened another – the growing influence of extreme voters. Research suggests that small donors tend to be richer than average Americans and often prioritize intensely partisan causes over the needs of ordinary voters.

The star recipients of small-dollar donations in recent years include figures like Ron Paul, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez – hardly paragons of moderation. Meanwhile, parties have been demonized as corrupt and ineffective. However, this narrative may be too simplistic. Parties have historically played a crucial role in mediating factional disagreements and building majorities that get things done.

The combined effect of post-Watergate campaign-finance reforms and the Citizens United decision has been to redirect big money into new vehicles that are less transparent and permanent than parties. This shift has led to voter disillusionment with politics as usual. The Supreme Court’s decision may be seen as a step backward, reviving the old party system. However, it could also represent an opportunity to rediscover the value of parties as institutions built for the long haul.

By allowing parties to spend more on campaigns and elections, we may be able to restore some of their former leverage and create a more robust and accountable system. Of course, this is not without risks. Parties will need to adapt to new realities and demonstrate their value to voters if they are to be revived. The Supreme Court’s decision has opened a door that was previously closed.

As we move forward, it will be worth watching how parties respond to this new landscape. Will they use their newfound freedom to build stronger institutions that prioritize compromise and pragmatism over ideological purity? Or will they simply return to old habits – prioritizing factional interests over the needs of voters? One thing is clear: the party revival has begun, and American democracy is about to get a lot more interesting.