Politics is a funny game. While nine out of ten people want to reduce the influence of money in politics, the megadonors are like, “hold my beer.” These folks have been throwing cash into the political system like it’s going out of style, all while circumventing campaign finance laws. It’s like playing Monopoly with real money, except it’s not a game, and we’re not having any fun.

In recent years, political spending has blown up like a balloon at a clown convention. The culprit behind this madness is something called “joint fundraising committees.” It’s like that time your cousin explained mortgages to you, and you just nodded and smiled like you knew what he was talking about. These committees bring candidates, national parties, and state parties together in one fundraising entity, making it rain on anyone who wants to throw money their way.

Typically, campaign finance laws try to keep people from currying favor with politicians by capping donations at a certain amount. But joint fundraising committees are like “hold my beer” and allow donors to give to multiple groups. This way, they can hit the contribution limit for as many groups as they want like it’s a game of whack-a-mole.

The result? Maximum donations to these mega-committees are not limited to a mere $5,600—all bets are off the table. Trump Victory got checks for $817,800, while the Biden Victory Fund received a whopping $730,600. It’s like dealing with overzealous toddlers in a candy store, except the candy is political influence.

While all of this is happening, fair distribution of funds there is not, my friend. In 2016, state-level Republican parties sent 90% of their cut from Trump Victory Fund to the Republican National Committee. That number jumped to 96% in 2020. On the flip side, Democratic state parties sent only 25% of their share from the Hillary Victory Fund to the DNC. It’s like playing with a stack of Monopoly money, where one person gets more than everyone else.

Joint fundraising committees allow politicians to have direct control over these pooled funds, making it a lot harder for the man on the street to be heard over donors who can cut six-figure checks. It’s like running a lemonade stand, but the kid with the richest dad wins.

Politicians love fundraisers where the price can range from $50,000 to six figures per person. I mean, who wouldn’t want to attend a party where millionaires show up bearing gifts? Trump attended 48 of those, while poor Joe had to make do with six-digit Zoom checks from Silicon Valley and Wall Street donors.

But hey, change is possible. Fred Wertheimer, president of the reform group Democracy 21, has some ideas. One option is to cap the number of committees that can fundraise together. That way, rich donors would have one less option to throw cash at politicians. Wertheimer also advocates for beefing up the Federal Election Commission to increase its enforcement capabilities.

Campaign finance policy is complicated, though. If politicians can’t schmooze with the rich, they’ll probably spend more time chasing medium-dollar donors, which could mean spending less time actually making decisions. But fundraising is an arms race, and both sides are willing to do almost anything to stay ahead. Politicians need to find a better way to fund their campaigns beyond just soliciting checks from billionaires.

Reforming joint fundraising committees would be an excellent first step in rescuing democracy from the jaws of the moneyed interests. Sure, it won’t solve all of our campaign finance problems, but hey—no one said democracy was cheap.

Serious News: washingtonpost