In the United States of America, most people don’t have the money to fund a campaign. Campaign laws in America need to be reformed so that everyone has an equal opportunity to uphold their public image.

Ideally, every candidate would have the same chance to win over the public. This way, a candidate’s ability to hold office would depend solely on who the voters think will perform the best.

Currently, candidates in our elections receive funding from large companies, donors, lobbyist groups, and influential individuals.

During every presidential election, I see ads for two candidates, neither of whom anyone particularly likes. 

To borrow a common phrase, many voters feel as if they are “choosing between the lesser of two evils” when they vote for a Republican or a Democrat.

I can guarantee intelligent, competent and capable candidates who are perfect for political office. Despite being capable candidates, they don’t possess the money or influence to have any real hope of winning an election. 

The Federal Elections Commission (FEC) initially set the spending limit for publicly funded presidential candidates in the primary election at $61,797,600. 

However, a significant 2010 Supreme Court case, Citizens United v. FEC, set a new precedent. Citizens United, a conservative nonprofit organization, argued that the First Amendment prevents the government from restricting organizations from spending money on a candidate’s political campaign.     Both candidates primarily receive private campaign funding, effectively dodging this spending limit. Usually, this money comes from organizations known as Political Action Committees (PACs). 

PACs pool money from their members to advocate for or against a political candidate. The FEC limits the amount of money PACs can take from members and prohibits PACS from receiving funds from large corporations.

The aftermath of the Citizens United v. FEC case gave way to the creation of the Super PAC. 

Technically known as independent expenditure-only committees, these organizations can receive and spend unlimited sums of money from individuals, nonprofits, labor unions and even large corporations. As a result, Super PACs can pool large amounts of money to support a candidate. “Make America Great Again Inc,” a Super PAC group, raised over $280 million in support of Trump.

The Wall Street Journal reports that both primary candidates for the 2024 election have spent hundreds of millions of dollars on their campaigns. 

Trump and Harris have spent $147 million and $346 million respectively on advertisements alone. 

The remaining independent candidates on the ballot could only hope for a fraction of the money the primary candidates receive.

Conservatives complain that Harris’s acquisition of $95 million from the Biden campaign is unfair, even illegal. 

Outrageously large transfers of money like this are completely legal under the law, and conservatives helped create that system.

This system is unfair, regardless of which party is on top. The Supreme Court must overturn its decision in the Citizens United v. FEC case and undo the political they created by allowing Super PACs to exist.

 It is ridiculous that, in the eyes of the Supreme Court Justices, corporations’ right to support a political candidate is more important than an American citizen’s right to a fair election. 

Lawmakers need to put more limitations on campaign financing. The government should create policies that allow other individuals to have as great of a presence in public as the major two-party candidates. 

Everyone who shows up on the ballot should have an equal opportunity to campaign on the same level without relying on the two major parties or the donors that fund them.

It is difficult to reach a definitive conclusion on what limits should be placed on campaign finances. However, these kinds of policy decisions need to be discussed.

We cannot continue to operate under a system that punishes potential candidates for not being rich enough. 

Until America reforms its current campaign finance laws, the winners of these elections will come down to who spends the most money.