You’ve Heard About Special Interests In Politics. Here Are Three Things You Need To Know.

New research suggests that the influence of money in politics can be mitigated through primary election reform.

Many Americans view the influence of money in our political system as a significant problem. When asked to name issues with American democracy, voters usually place “money in politics” at or near the top of the list, fearing that big money and wealthy interests have too much sway on government. For example, a recent poll found that over 82% of registered voters agree that “The influence of money in politics is a threat to our democracy.” Further, 77% support a constitutional amendment that would allow for limits on money in politics. The reality, however, is that large-scale campaign finance reform is likely not achievable, at least in the short term. 

Not all hope is lost for campaign finance reformers, however. A new report from the Unite America Institute reveals that the outsized impact of wealthy ideological special interests can be mitigated via an unlikely source: primary election reform.

Here are three major findings from the new report:

1. Ideological PACs are now the big spenders – and they represent fewer voters

The new report, “The Influence of Special Interests in Primary Elections,” shows how ideological Political Action Committees (PACs) have become the dominant spenders in federal primary elections and, as a result, exacerbate polarization. These ideological interests are typically funded by a handful of wealthy donors and advocate for unrepresentative left- and right-wing policy agendas, while hoping to push their respective parties in those directions.

Over the past 10-15 years, since the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling, ideological PACs have surpassed (in spending and influence) the business and labor PACs that historically dominated spending, represent broader segments of voters, and tend to support more incremental policy change.

Key Findings:

• Since 2012, Ideological PACs have given 6-10 times more (controlling for inflation) than the once dominant business PACs gave before 2010.
  

• In 1992, many of the top spending PACs were membership organizations, including the American Medical Association, which represented 300,000+ doctors nationwide, and the National Education Association, which represented 2.1 million education workers nationwide. These interest groups represent large swaths of the public who hold different political views and focus their advocacy on narrow issues that will benefit their large constituencies.
  
• In 2022, the top two PACs were the conservative Club for Growth Action, which was almost exclusively funded by three conservative/libertarian billionaires (Richard Uhilein, Jeff Yass, and Robert Bigelow), and the liberal Protect Our Future PAC, which was entirely funded by the now-disgraced former crypto billionaire Sam Bankman-Fried. These groups clearly do not represent broad parts of the public and push interests that align with their funders’ agendas. 

2. Ideological PACs are more likely to challenge incumbents and support extreme candidates than other kinds of PACs – and their influence can decide elections

The report also demonstrates how ideological PACs are more likely to support insurgent, ideologically-extreme candidates (as opposed to incumbents) and finds that these PACs tend to “win” when they support different candidates from business and labor PACs.

Business and labor PACs predominantly spend on campaigns in order to seek access with lawmakers. These groups care about bread-and-butter economic and regulatory issues, typically prefer mainstream policies, and hope to gain or maintain access to politicians who are likely to remain in office moving forward. As a result, the vast majority of their contributions go to incumbents. 

Since 2012, ideological PACs, on the other hand, only invest between 25-60% of their spending on incumbents. They are also much more likely to contribute to primary challengers and candidates running in open seats. The behavior of ideological PACs indicates that they are not merely looking to gain access to sitting politicians, but, rather, they are hoping to reshape government by electing different candidates entirely.

Key Findings:

• Ideological PACs are 2 to 6 times more likely than business and labor to support candidates challenging incumbents in primaries.

• When ideological PACs prefer different candidates from business and labor, the ideological PACs' preferred candidate is roughly four times more likely to win the primary.

• Since 2012, the number of ideological PACs who support a candidate is a better predictor of primary vote share than the number of business and labor PACs.

3. Open, all-candidate primaries are our best bet to mitigate the outsized influence of ideological PACs

Finally, the report demonstrates how open, all-candidate primaries significantly mitigate the outsized influence of ideological PACs by creating a more balanced playing field for all candidates and interests.

In low turnout party primaries, the power of ideological PACs is at its peak. In these contests, special interest groups only need to influence a relatively small number of voters to sway the outcome, and party primary voters are more easily influenced by outside groups because all candidates are from the same party. However, in all-candidate primaries, primary elections feature more candidates with diverse perspectives and voter participation tends to be higher. There is a single primary in which candidates from all parties compete. This means that conservative and liberal ideological PACs and business and labor groups are all engaged in a single election. In these more competitive primary elections, unrepresentative ideological PACs are less likely to change election outcomes through an infusion of cash.

As a result, in open, all-candidate primaries, ideological PACs’ spending does not go nearly as far as it does in party primaries.

Key Findings:

• In open, all-candidate primaries, the impact of support from ideological PACs on a candidate's primary vote share is 1/4 as strong as it is in party primaries.
  
• In party primaries, backing from 20 ideological PACs (a one standard deviation increase) boosts a candidate's vote share by 9.4 percentage points.
  
• In open, all-candidate primaries, the same level of support only increases a candidate’s vote share by 2.4 percentage points.
  

Conclusion

Overall, the report’s findings indicate that reform efforts meant to curb polarization and improve representation should focus on the primary election process. All-candidate primary systems appear to reduce the influence of ideological PACs, leading to the election of more representative candidates. This is ultimately a key goal of the campaign finance reform movement, so, in the short term, it may be wise for such reformers to turn their attention to primary reform.