Op-Ed: Setting the record straight on campaign finance

A recent analysis by Clara Ence Morse challenges common claims about political spending after the Citizens United ruling. While wealthy donors and corporations attract attention, their financial impact remains smaller than often assumed. The discussion also highlights how long-standing laws—not just recent decisions—shape campaign finance today.

The Buckley v. Valeo ruling in 1976 first allowed individuals to spend unlimited sums on elections. Citizens United, decided decades later, focused instead on corporate and union spending. Despite concerns, publicly traded companies have contributed only about 2% of total political spending in elections since that decision.

The wealthiest 100 Americans now fund roughly 7.5% of federal election costs. Yet the remaining 92.5% still comes from other donors, mostly individuals. This distribution suggests that while wealthy contributors hold influence, their financial reach has boundaries. Critics often link *Citizens United* to increased political turnover, but data shows a clearer shift. In the five election cycles before the ruling, Congress welcomed an average of 55 freshmen members per cycle. Afterward, that number rose to 79—though other factors, like voter engagement and campaign strategies, also play a role. The *Washington Post*’s recent series on campaign finance has faced scrutiny for misrepresenting these figures. Morse argues that the reporting overlooks key legal distinctions and exaggerates corporate influence. She also notes that spending, when transparent, helps voters learn about candidates’ positions.

Money remains essential for political campaigns, enabling candidates to communicate with voters. The debate over Citizens United continues, but its effects appear more limited than often portrayed. Most funding still flows from individuals, and electoral outcomes reflect broader public priorities.