Do We Need a Spending Cap on Political Campaigns?

In 1860, Abraham Lincoln won the presidency in a three-way race by spending $2.8 million in 2026 dollars.  Fast forward to the 2024 presidential election and Vice President Kamala Harris raised $1 billion from donors and another $586 from political action committees (PACs).  Meanwhile, President Donald Trump raised $382 million from donors and another $694 million from affiliated PACs.

In case you’re math-challenged like me, that’s $2.662 billion total.

Overall, expenditures on presidential campaigns have increased 260-fold since Honest Abe’s heyday, far outpacing the 40.12-fold increase in everyday living expenses during that same period according to Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index (CPI) data.

Simply put, spending on political campaigns has become a runaway train and – like poor Nell Fenwick, who was constantly tied to the tracks by Snidely Whiplash – the American people are being railroaded by the Washington elite and moneyed powerbrokers across our fruited plain.

Worse yet, the locomotive is picking up steam, with campaign spending having quadrupled from 2000 to 2012 alone.  In 2016, expenditures for all federal campaigns totaled $6.8 billion.  By 2024, that number had mushroomed to $21 billion... and counting.

This trend isn’t just unhealthy.  It is unsustainable… especially if we want to preserve our constitutional republic.

Do we really want billionaires like Michael Bloomberg spending $935 million of his own money to win/buy a single mayoral primary in New York City?  If so, every political office in the country will soon be up for sale – if it isn’t already.

When I ran for the U.S. House of Representatives in New Jersey’s 1st congressional district in 2008, I was told that because my district was in a major media market (the Philadelphia suburbs), I would need to raise $2 million to run a credible campaign.  That was simply impossible for several reasons.

First, I was running against an 8-term incumbent in one of the safest Democratic districts in the country where a Republican hadn’t won since 1972.  And so, no one wanted to donate to a candidate who didn’t stand a chance – despite the fact that I earned the endorsements of the three largest newspapers in the area, including the liberal Philadelphia Inquirer and the Gannett-owned Courier-Post.

Second, as executive director of a prison ministry, one of my major responsibilities was to raise money to finance that organization.  That led me to tell potential donors to my campaign, “If you only have $1 to give, donate it to my ministry, because it’s more important to send an inmate to heaven than me to Washington.”

Not the best fundraising appeal, I’ll admit, but true nonetheless.

I raised a paltry $30,000 but still managed to win more than 70,000 votes and a higher percentage than any Republican candidate in my district in 35 years.  Building on that foundation, I was asked to run again in 2010, secured the GOP nomination for a second time, and raised $60,000 this time around.  The result at the polls was marginally better – I did 9% better and my opponent did 9% worse (an 18% swing).  But at the end of the day, I learned a difficult lesson in Politics 101: money talks.

Actually, it screams.

It is now 16 years later, and money is shouting louder than ever.  Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) just lost to challenger Ed Gallrein in the most expensive congressional primary in American history.  The price tag for that race was an astronomical $32 million and yet it paled in comparison to the $120 million that was spent on the U.S. Senate primary in Texas between John Cornyn and Ken Paxton.

I am not the first person to sound the alarm about the spending on political campaigns getting out of control.  The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA) established contribution limits, source restrictions, and disclosure requirements for federal candidates and committees with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) overseeing enforcement.  Next came the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BRCA) of 2002, better known as the McCain-Feingold Act, which expanded disclosure rules and created “soft money” bans.

However, some of those rules and restrictions were removed by the Supreme Court in its Citizens United v. FEC (2010) and McCutcheon v. FEC (2014) rulings, citing donors’ First Amendment right to free speech.  As a result, Timothy Mellon, the 82-year-old banking heir, was legally able to donate $197 million to President Trump’s 2024 campaign and various other GOP-affiliated PACs.  Four others – including Elon Musk, casino magnate Miriam Adelson, and hedge fund investor Kenneth Griffin – donated more than $100 million each to President Trump and his PACs in 2024.

And it’s not just presidential races that are out of control.  In 2024, spending on senate races in six states – Texas, Ohio, Montana, Maryland, California, and Arizona – exceeded $100 million and the race in Texas came within $40,000 of $200 million.
 
That’s insane!  It’s also very, very dangerous for democracy, because not only does it preclude average Americans from running for office but is also leaves those candidates who win overly beholden to their deep-pocketed donors.

Don’t think for a minute that donors who write really big checks aren’t expecting a favor or two down the road… and that goes double for PACs and special interest groups who demand VIP treatment when legislation that affects them comes up for a vote.

When I ran for Congress in 2008, there was a congressman in an adjacent district named Jim Saxton who was retiring after a distinguished 25-year career.  His advice to me was simple: “Don’t run unless you’re willing to spend 3-4 hours every night, walking across the street from the Capitol building, to call people and beg them for money.”

You see, House terms are just two-years long and so, no sooner are you elected and sworn into office, but you have to start raising money to be re-elected.  Is that really how we want our elected officials to spend their time?

So, what’s the solution?

I’m not sure if there is an easy one, but I might suggest the following: How about a spending cap, similar to what some of the major sports leagues in America have established?

The NBA instituted a hard salary cap in 1984, and the NFL did likewise in 1994, followed by the NHL in 2005.  Whereas the Major League Baseball Players Association has resisted a salary cap, teams that exceed a specified total compensation figure are forced to pay a luxury tax each year.  When the current collective bargaining agreement expires this December, MLB is expected to demand that the players’ union accept a salary cap or be prepared for a lockout that could delay or cancel much of the 2027 season.

Simply put, the team owners have arrived at the same conclusion that I have: spending is out of control, and drastic measures must be taken to rein it in.  We must do what is necessary to save America’s National Pastime as well as this great experiment in democracy we call the United States of America.

Editor’s Note: Traditional PACs are subject to both donation and spending limits.  They can contribute up to $5,000 per election to a candidate, $5,000 annually to other PACs, and $15,000 to national party committees each year.  Individuals, other PACs, and corporations can donate up to $5,000 annually to a traditional PAC.

Super PACs, also known as independent expenditure-only committees, emerged after the 2010 Citizens United v. FEC decision.  These PACs cannot donate directly to candidates or parties but can spend unlimited amounts on political advertising and other election-related activities that do not coordinate directly with candidates or parties.  There are no limits on the amounts that individuals or corporations can donate to Super PACs.  Super PACs cannot accept contributions from foreign nationals, federal contractors, national banks, or federally chartered corporations.

Hybrid PACs operate with two separate accounts to accommodate different functionalities. One account adheres to traditional PAC limits and can contribute directly to candidates, while the other operates like a Super PAC, making unlimited independent expenditures without direct coordination with candidates or parties. This dual structure was made possible by the 2012 Carey v. FEC decision.