Pearl River      It took a while to get Professor Danielle Thomsen from the University of California at Irvine on Wade’s World to talk about her research explicated in, The Money Signal:  How Fundraising Matters in American Politics.  We published an excerpt months ago in Social Policy, but then had to wait until after her pregnancy leave to talk more about her insights.  There’s a small part of me that felt sorry for Thomsen on her book’s timing.  Every day in America now we are battered by headlines that continually swirl around Trump and so many in his administration that don’t signal, but scream about the role of money, and therefore how the constant fundraising by politicians, “matters in American politics.”  It’s probably good that she got her work out there now, or she would have been forced to give almost daily “I told you so” bulletins in a blog or podcast, and too many would hear about her work and shrug while saying, “no, duh.”

In fairness, Thomsen’s work is enduringly valuable because she exposes its role across the board in local and Congressional races as well.  She found that “money is a signal of viability for candidates,” and that means all candidates at every level.  In the presidential cycle, there has often been discussion of the “money primary,” which is the constant tabulation of who has raised the most money and could survive as a candidate.  The money primary historically has been where the rich “vote” first with their big dollars long before any real votes are cast, although the role of small donors whether for Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders, or Donald Trump has complicated the picture.  As Thomsen points out, this is as powerful, perhaps more so, in down ballot races, as it is at the top of the ticket where the “best fundraisers win 92% of the time.”  In Congressional races, for example, her research finds that the second reporting quarter is when many non-incumbents aspirants are winnowed out, because they haven’t been able to fill the campaign coffers to overflowing.  The media fuels this fire.  Thomsen finds that 97% of the top fundraisers get media attention for their ability to shake the money tree.

Every dark horse that comes out of nowhere to win like Alexandria Ocasio Cortez or Zohran Mamdani, is a unicorn.  Past elections lead political pros to rate district seats as “hopeless if the party received less than 42.5% …competitive if the party received between 42.5 and 57.5%, and safe if the party received more than 57%.”  Donors following the numbers will evaluate viability of a candidate, with or without incumbents, this way, putting even more pressure from the opening announcement on whether the prospective candidate can compete in fundraising, especially against these odds.  All of this helps explain why there are so few competitive elections, especially given the lack of any meaningful curbs on political donations, PACs, and unaligned committees using their cash to impact the vote.

In Congressional races, money also plays a less reported role somewhat behind the scenes.  Given the critical nature of the money signal, committee assignments made by party leaders are heavily weighted to favor candidates that have proven themselves as effective fundraisers.  Many incumbents run “leader” PACS to influence their standing on committees and in Congress by being able to donate to races being run by their colleagues.  In short, it’s not just a matter of billionaires buying cabinet seats and ambassadorships at the federal level, but money washes through Congress and down to the lowest levels of elected office.  As Thomsen powerfully argues, “…the power of money is different.  Money serves as a focal point long before the election and well after the votes have been cast.”  She also cites polls finding both Democrats and Republicans “say that donors have more influence in politics” with “37% of Americans” saying “that their representative would help them with a problem…compared to 53% of those who donated money and 63% of donors who gave more than $250.”

The Supreme Court can live in the bubble that money is free speech, but voters and donors are clear that money is buying influence.  Without change and limits, money is a frontal assault to any of our last pretenses of democracy.