Corporate Halt to Political Donations Highlights Value of Private Campaign Funding

[Updated 3/7/21]

A major plank in the Democratic Party Platform includes a plank to ban all private funding of elections, saying “Democrats believe that the interests and the voices of the American people should determine our elections.” How will they do that? Through a constitutional amendment “eliminating all private financing from federal elections.” Who will then finance election campaigns? The government, with money seized from private citizens regardless of their consent. (Page 57)

Private funding of political campaigns is one of the best ways for citizens to keep politicians accountable to those they seek to govern. Politicians should have to go to the citizens, hat-in-hand, to ask for money to finance their campaigns. The Democrats’ want to take that accountability away, and give politicians free reign to grab their money away without their consent. As I wrote on this subject in 2016:

Public funding is a dream come true for the power-hungry political class. Imagine politicians being able to go on their unfettered way of regulating, taxing, and controlling our lives without having to put up with those pesky private citizens getting in their way? How many politicians would love to silence dissent and challenge? Nothing could be more contrary to democratic principles under constitutional republicanism than that.

The Democratic statists would enhance “the voices of the American people” by banning their voice in who gets funded to run for office, and switching that voice to the politicians who themselves would determine who gets the funding.

Well, we just got a lesson on the value of private financing. As The New York Times reported on 1/12/21:

Large corporations and their lobbyists usually try to steer clear of messy political fights. Companies prefer to work behind the scenes, giving money to both political parties and quietly influencing tax policy, spending and regulation. But President Trump’s effort to overturn the result of the presidential election — and the violent attack on Congress by his supporters — has created a dilemma for many companies. A growing number have decided that they are, at least for now, not willing to support members of Congress who backed Trump’s efforts to change the election result and promoted lies about election fraud.

Over the weekend, several large companies — Marriott, Blue Cross Blue Shield and Commerce Bancshares — announced a suspension of donations to members of Congress who voted against election certification. Yesterday, the list expanded to Amazon, AT&T, Comcast, Airbnb, Mastercard, Verizon and Dow, the chemical company. Hallmark has even asked for its money back from two of the senators who opposed certification, Josh Hawley and Roger Marshall.

The Times also noted that some companies announced halts on all campaign giving, while others announced no halt. These are major corporate donors. I suspect that many smaller donors are reconsidering their donations after the tumultuous lockdown and violent 2020.

Another example of how campaign funding gives private citizens a voice over the politicians came after the January 6th Capitol riot during Congress’s Electoral College certification vote for Joe Biden. In a 3/6/21 article, Chamber of Commerce declines to rebuke members of Congress who voted to overturn 2020 election, Aaron Gregg reports for the Washington Post:

America’s largest business lobby says it will not pull support for members of Congress based solely on whether they voted against certifying Joe Biden’s election win in Arizona and Pennsylvania.

In a memo released Friday, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said that the organization would continue to evaluate the actions of individual members of Congress but would not withhold funds based solely on their vote.

"There is a meaningful difference between a member of Congress who voted no on the question of certifying the votes of certain states and those who engaged and continue to engage in repeated actions that undermine the legitimacy of our elections and institutions," wrote Ashlee Rich Stephenson, a senior political strategist at the chamber.

I don’t know what kinds of effects these private donor actions will have on the politicians affected. But they surely will have some effect. At any rate, the donor boycotts will surely send a message--a message that they would not be able to send without the leverage that comes with politicians having to depend on their private constituents for money they need to run their campaigns on.

Of course, people have the moral right to decide whether and who to donate money to in political campaigns. The politicians have no right to seize their campaign funds from American citizens through taxes. America is supposed to be a free country. The politicians are supposed to serve the people, not master them.

That said, these corporate boycotters have given us a practical demonstration on the value of private campaign funding. They demonstrate how private campaign financing makes politicians accountable to the governed. In the name of “believe[ing] that the interests and the voices of the American people should determine our elections,” the Democrats want to greatly reduce the American people’s voices in American politics.

Related Reading:

Campaign Finance—Voluntary Contributions vs. Public Funding: Which is ‘Dirty?’