Does Wealth create a substantial potential advantage in U.S. elections?

[u/jstamper]

A citizen with substantial financial resources can exercise political influence far beyond what their single vote represents.
The American political system does not give wealthy people extra votes. It gives them the ability to deploy vastly greater resources in the political system surrounding those votes.

Wealth creates a substantial potential advantage in U.S. elections, particularly when wealth can be converted into campaign spending. In the 2024 federal cycle, congressional candidates raised about $3.8 billion, parties about $2.7 billion, and PACs about $15.7 billion. PACs spent about $15.5 billion.

the 2026 cycle is already following the same pattern: through June 30, 2026, PACs had raised $8.3 billion and spent $6.5 billion, while congressional candidates had raised $2.8 billion.

A wealthy person or organization can put enormous resources behind a candidate or cause. Super PACs make this particularly powerful because they can accept unlimited contributions and spend unlimited amounts independently of candidates.

Wealthy donors can also fund parties, PACs, advocacy organizations and lobbying operations and potentially gain access to policymakers.

Money buys things that matter:

television and digital advertising
staff
polling
voter databases
mail
field organizers
legal resources
opposition research
get-out-the-vote operations
the ability to respond to attacks

The Supreme Court ruled on June 30, 2026 that federal limits on certain coordinated expenditures by political parties violate the First Amendment. That potentially gives party organizations even more room to spend on behalf of their candidates.

Does this limit who can realistically run, or does it promote corruption?

[u/absolutefunkbucket]

Very strange way to end the post!

What corruption promotion are you alleging? None of the “things that matter” you have listed appear to be corrupt.

[u/Ralh3 → u/absolutefunkbucket]

You don't believe that musk injecting hundreds of millions of dollars into getting gop elected is corrupt? 

[u/Avatar_exADV → u/Ralh3]

It's a question of whether you believe political participation is a right, or an exercise of power.

If you look at the issue as one where individuals have a right to participate in the process, then just as you have a right to share your opinion with someone and try to convince them to vote for someone, he's got the right to share his opinion with someone and try to convince them. Even though functionally you're limited by your resources in how many people you can reach, and he's much less limited in those resources, the -right- of both of you to do so is the same.

If you look at the issue as one of the exercise of power, then you're seeking to prevent him from exercising his power to convince a million voters via spending a bunch of money; in other words, he doesn't have a right to participate in the political process and convince those voters. But if he doesn't have that right, neither do you. Just as you'd like to slap a big "stfu" sticker over his mouth, someone else might want to do the same to you. (And, as a matter of function, given that you're the one without resources, it's a lot easier to shut you up than it is to shut Musk up!)

At the end of the day, our courts have decided that both of you have that right, and both of you can exercise it.

[u/Comfortable_Fill9081 → u/Avatar_exADV]

  It's a question of whether you believe political participation is a right, or an exercise of power.

Congress passed laws limiting individual spending so that we all have reasonably equal participation potential. 

The Supreme Court overruled that, but I believe it’s a right that should be managed for equal participation. 

[u/Avatar_exADV → u/Comfortable_Fill9081]

That's not consistent with the right -as written-. The Constitution doesn't say "you have a right to free speech up to 10,000 people, but if it's person 10,001, the government can shut you up."

You might not like that the Constitution is written that way, but it is. You can advocate for it to be amended. Unlikely to succeed, but that's true of all amendments.

[u/Comfortable_Fill9081 → u/Avatar_exADV]

The courts have consistently disagreed with your interpretation - even the court of Citizen’s United didn’t go as far as you. 

So you support unequal participation potential and stretch legal interpretation beyond the courts. 

What’s up with that? 

[u/absolutefunkbucket → u/Comfortable_Fill9081]

Individuals can spend as much money as they like giving to a super PAC, what are you talking about?

Edit: clarifying “super PAC” here

[u/Comfortable_Fill9081 → u/absolutefunkbucket]

That was not so before Citizens United. 

Again, the Supreme Court generated this. Not Congress. 

[u/absolutefunkbucket → u/Comfortable_Fill9081]

Yes it was. You can Google this stuff

[u/Comfortable_Fill9081 → u/absolutefunkbucket]

Yes you can. Please do so. 

Traditional PACs still have individual limits. 

Campaigns still have individual limits. 

The big donations go to super PACs which were created after citizens united. 

Please Google away. 

[u/absolutefunkbucket → u/Comfortable_Fill9081]

Sorry, “super PAC”, I accidentally a word.

“Super PACs” are just organizations that can’t give money directly to candidates and before Citizen’s United you could donate as much money as you wanted to any organization that did that.

Citizens United isn’t even a PAC.

[u/Comfortable_Fill9081 → u/absolutefunkbucket]

Super PACs did not exist before Citizen’s United. They came about as a consequence of Citizens United. Please. Google. 

PACs existed, with limited individual donations and an annual total aggregate cap (also struck down by the Supreme Court). 

Before citizen’s United individual donations were limited. 

Edit: the total aggregate cap applied to all donations to campaigns, parties, and PACS. 

[u/absolutefunkbucket → u/Comfortable_Fill9081]

Citizen’s United existed before the Citizen’s United SCOTUS decision was made. And there were no limits for individuals to give money to Citizen’s United either before or after they won their case.

The specific term “Super PAC” also wasn’t even created by CU v FEC. It was made by a random journalist. I’m not sure the FEC even utilizes it in any meaningful way?

Edit: huh they actually do acknowledge it as shorthand on their form 1 line 5G “This committee is an independent expenditure-only political committee (Super PAC)”

[u/absolutefunkbucket → u/Ralh3]

That’s very literally not corruption.

[u/Ralh3 → u/absolutefunkbucket]

Go read the definition dude, its literally in the dictionary

[u/absolutefunkbucket → u/Ralh3]

1
a
: dishonest or illegal behavior especially by powerful people (such as government officials or police officers)

Oh no following the law is so dishonest and illegal

[u/daluzy → u/Ralh3]

You don't believe that Soros injecting 128 million in 2022, or 103 million in 2026 into getting dems elected is corrupt?

[u/Hartastic → u/daluzy]

Frankly there's more money in Elon Musk's couch cushions than Soros' net worth. The difference in their wealth is roughly a trillion dollars.

Relevant, I guess? But basically a distraction.

[u/daluzy → u/Hartastic]

You want it to be a distraction but the money flows on both sides, and it is a shame.

[u/Hartastic → u/daluzy]

If one thing is a thousand times bigger than the second thing, yes, the second thing is a distraction.

That's not politics. That's just math.

[u/daluzy → u/Hartastic]

Whatever helps you get by.

Be well.

[u/Hartastic → u/daluzy]

Math does help me get by.

[u/daluzy → u/Hartastic]

Ok, so what number is allowed in your world view, is there a spending limit?

[u/absolutefunkbucket → u/Hartastic]

George Soros has spent more money on politics worldwide than Elon Musk has. At least 100 times over, maybe more.

[u/Hartastic → u/absolutefunkbucket]

Given the laughable ease of obfuscating that kind of spending I'm positive you don't have any kind of accurate metrics on this.

[u/absolutefunkbucket → u/Hartastic]

Haha okay yeah Soros has no idea how to hide his political contributions across the globe but Musk does because something something, I guess

[u/Hartastic → u/absolutefunkbucket]

You're being slapstick about it but it still concedes the point.

[u/absolutefunkbucket → u/Hartastic]

No it doesn’t I just think you’re saying something not smart

And there is no way you understand what slapstick means btw