Does The U.S. Campaign Finance System Favor Republicans?


There is a common belief that the pro-regulatory approach of Democrats, makes them more determined in the fight against big money in campaign elections, whereas Republicans, supporting recent Supreme Court decisions in Citizens United v. F.E.C. and McCutcheon v. F.E.C., benefit from the system more than their political counterparts. The aim of the article is to analyze the real character of the U.S. campaign finance regulations, both from legislative and judicial perspective, and to determine which political party benefits from the system: Republican or Democratic? By underlining the Buckley rule that ‘money is speech’ the Author suggests that campaign contributions and spending are deeply rooted in the character of American political system determining the political future of candidates of both political parties. The article refers to election cycles since 1970s, but it mainly focuses on recent election cycles, including the 2016 presidential election.


Key words:

campaign finance, Republicans and Democrats, U.S. politics and law

Abraham, R.J. (2010). Saving Buckley. Creating a Stable Campaign Finance Framework. Columbia Law Review, 110(4): 1078–122.

Adamany, D.W., & Agree, G.E. (1975). Political Money. A Strategy for Campaign Financing in America. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Alexander, H.E., & Haggerty, B.A. (1981). The Federal Election Campaign Act. After a Decade of Political Reform. Los Angeles, CA: Citizens’ Research Foundation.

Amendments to Federal Election Campaign Act 88 Stat. 1263, 1974.

Amendments to Federal Election Campaign Act 90 Stat. 475, 1976.

Amendments to Federal Election Campaign Act 93 Stat. 1339, 1980.

Bailey, T.A. (1981). Presidential Saints and Sinners, New York, NY: Free Press.

Bell, C.W. (2015). A Constitutional Amendment Allowing Broader Campaign – Finance Reform Would Not Criminize Political Satire. St. Mary’s Law Journal, 47(1): 187–217.

Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (An Act to Amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to Provide Bipartisan Campaign Reform) 116 Stat. 81, 2002.

Black, S.N. (2015). Money Motives. Finding the Balance Between Freedom of Speech and Campaign Finance Regulation. Oklahoma City University Law Review, 40(2): 481–501.

Blumenthal, S. (1982). The Permanent Campaign. New York, NY: Free Press.

Boatright R.G. (2014). Interest Groups and Campaign Finance Reform in the United States and Canada. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Buckley v. Valeo 424 U.S. 1, 1976.

CFI, President Trump, with RNC Help, Raised More Small Donor Money than President Obama; As Much as Clinton and Sanders Combined. (15.06.2017).

Citizens United v. F.E.C.558 U.S. 310.

Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. F.E.C. 518 U.S. 604, 1996.

Corrado, A. (2010). Fund-raising Strategies in the 2008 Presidential Campaign. In: J.A. Thurber, & C.J. Nelson (eds.), Campaigns and Elections American Style. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 105–35.

Corrado, A. (2005). Money and Politics. A History of Federal Campaign Finance Law. In: A. Corrado, et. al. (eds.), The New Campaign Finance Sourcebook, Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 7-47.

CRP, 2012 Top Donors to Outside Spending Groups. (15.06.2017).

CRP, 2014 Top Donors to Outside Spending Groups. (15.06.2017).

CRP, 2016 Outside Spending, by Candidate. (15.06.2017).

CRP, 2016 Presidential Race. (15.06.2017).

CRP, 527s: Advocacy Group Spending, (15.06.2017).

CRP, Cost of Election. (15.06.2017).

CRP, Donor Demographics. (15.06.2017).

CRP, Outside Spending. (15.06.2017).

CRP, SuperPACs. (15.06.2017).

CRP, Top Individual Contributors: All Federal Contributions. (15.06.2017).

Davis v. F.E.C. 554 U.S. 724, 2008.

Drutman, L. (2016). The Rise of Dark Money. In: A.J. Cigler, B.A. Loomis, & A.J. Nownes (eds.), Interest Group Politics, Washington D.C.: CQ Press.

Farrar-Myers, F.A., Dwyre, D. (2007). Limits, and Loopholes: The Quest for Money, Free Speech, and Fair Elections. Washington D.C.: CQ Press.

Farias, C. (2015). Americans Agree on One Thing: Citizens United Is Terrible. (15.06.2017).

F.E.C. v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee 533 U.S. 431, 2001.

F.E.C. v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life 479 U.S. 238, 1986.

F.E.C. v. National Conservative Political Action Committee 470 U.S. 480, 1985.

F.E.C. v. Wisconsin Right to Life 551 U.S. 449, 2007.

Federal Election Campaign Act (An Act to Promote Fair Practices in the Conduct of Election Campaigns for Federal Political Offices, and for Other Purposes) 86 Stat. 3, 1971.

Federal Corrupt Practices Act, 43 Stat. 1070, 1925.

FEC, Coordinated Communications and Independent Expenditures. (15.06.2017).

FEC, National Political Party Committee Summary. (15.06.2017).

Foerstel, H. N. (1997). Free Expression and Censorship in America. An Encyclopedia, Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Garrett, S. R., & Whitaker, P. L. (2016). Coordinated Party Expenditures in Federal Elections. An Overview. (15.06.2017).

Gerken, H. K. (2014). The Real Problem with Citizens United. Campaign Finance, Dark Money, and Shadow Parties. Marquette Law Review, 97(4): 903–23.

Gold, M. (2016). Nearly $100 Million in SuperPAC Money Couldn’t Save Jeb Bush. (15.06.2017).

Grossmann, M., & Hopkins, D.A. (2016). Asymmetric Politics. Ideological Republicans and Group Interest Democrats. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Handlesman J.B., How Much Justice Can You Afford?The New Yorker Collection, (15.06.2017).

Hohenstein, K. (2007). Coining Corruption. The Making of the American Campaign Finance System. DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois University Press.

Janda, K., Berry, J.M., & Goldman, J. (1995). The Challenge of Democracy. Government in America. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Jones, N. L. (2016). Citizens United Round II. Campaign Finance, Disclosure, the First Amendment, and Expanding Exemptions and Loopholes for Corporate Influence on Elections. Denver Law Review, 93 (3): 749– 96.

Judis, J. B., & Teixeira, R. (2004). The Emerging Democratic Majority. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Laidler, P., & Turek, M. (2016). Cena demokracji. Finansowanie federalnych kampanii wyborczych w Stanach Zjednoczonych Ameryki. Kraków: Księgarnia Akademicka.

Laidler, P. (2016). Prawo finansowania federalnych kampanii wyborczych w Stanach Zjednoczonych Ameryki z perspektywy debaty politycznej między republikanami a demokratami. In: R. Kłosowicz, et al. (eds.), Konstytucjonalizm, doktryny, partie polityczne. Księga dedykowana Profesorowi Andrzejowi Ziębie, Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 479–506.

Magleby, D.B., & Squires, N.C.(2004). Party Money in the 2002 Congressional Elections. In: D. B. Magleby, & J. Q. Monson (eds.), The Last Hurrah? Soft Money and Issue Advocacy in the 2002 Congressional Elections, Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 36–62.

Maisel, S.L. (1991). Political Partiesand Elections in the United States. An Encyclopedia. New York, NY: Garland Publishing.

Malbin, M.J. (2003). Life After the Reform. When the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act Meets Politics. Boston, MA: Rowman & Littlefield.

Malbin, M.J. (2009). Small Donors, Large Donors and the Internet: The Case for Public Funding After Obama. (15.06.2017).

Mann, T.E., & Corrado, A. (2014). Party Polarization and Campaign Finance. (15.06.2017).

Mann, T.E. (2003). The Rise of Soft Money. In: A. Corrado, T. E. Mann, & T. Potter (eds.), Inside the Campaign Finance Battle. Court Testimony on the New Reforms. Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 17–39.

McConnell v. F.E.C. 540 U.S. 93, 2003.

McCutcheon v. U.S. 572 U.S. 12-536, 2014.

Mutch, R. (2014). Buying the Vote. A History of Campaign Finance Reform, New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Mutch, R. (2016). Campaign Finance: What Everyone Needs To Know. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Newberry v. U.S. 256 U.S. 232, 1921.

Ornstein, N. J., Mann, T. E., Malbin, M.J., Rugg, A., & Wakeman, R. (2015). Vital Statistics on Congress, Washington D.C.: American Enterprise Institute.

Oświecimski, K. (2012). Grupy interesu i lobbing w amerykańskim systemie politycznym. Kraków: Wydawnictwo WAM.

Oświecimski, K. (2011). Finansowanie kampanii wyborczych w USA – rozwój regulacji, ich konsekwencje i aspekty polityczne. Horyzonty Polityki, 2: 241–95.

La Raja, R.J, & Schaffner, B.F. (2015). Campaign Finance and Political Polarization: When Purists Prevail. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

La Raja, R.J. (2008). Small Change: Money, Political Parties, and Campaign Finance Reform. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Regan, M.D. (2016). What Does Voter Turnout Tells Us about the 2016 Election? (15.06.2017).

Remarks by the President in State of the Union Address. (15.06.2017).

Restuccia, A., & Vogel, K.P. (2015). Steyer Starts as Liberal Donors Gather. (15.06.2017).

Samples, J.C. (2008). The Fallacy of Campaign Finance Reform. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Smith, M.M., & Powell, L. (2014). Dark Money, Super PACs and the 2012 Election. Lanham: Lexington Books.

SpeechNow.Org v. F.E.C. 559 F.3d 686, 2010.

Thurber, J.A. (2010). Understanding the Dynamics and the

Transformation of American Campaigns. In: J.A. Thurber, & C.J. Nelson (eds.), Campaigns and Elections American Style, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Toner, M.E., & Trainer, K.E. (2015). The Money Game. Emerging Campaign Finance Trends and Their Impact on 2014 and Beyond. In: L.J. Sabato (ed.), The Surge. 2014’s Big GOP Win and What It Means For the Next Presidential Election, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 111–28.

Torres-Spelliscy, C. (2017). Neil Gorsuch Understands Campaign Finance – And That’s the Problem.–-and-that’s-problem (15.06.2017).

Turek, M. (2013a). Narodowe Konwencje Partyjne w Stanach Zjednoczonych. Czy są dziś potrzebne? In: A. Małek, & P. Napierała (eds.), Stany Zjednoczone wczoraj i dziś. Wybrane zagadnienia społeczno-polityczne. Kraków: Księgarnia Akademicka, 111–33.

Turek, M. (2013b). Amerykański system finansowania wyborów i jego konsekwencje. In: A. Małek, & P. Napierała (eds.), Stany Zjednoczone wczoraj i dziś. Wybrane zagadnienia społeczno-polityczne. Kraków: Księgarnia Akademicka, 167–95.

Tyler, D.E. (1999). The Unions and the Democrats. An Enduring Alliance. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Weintraub, E.L., & Tausanovitch, A.(2013). Reflections on Campaign Finance and the 2012 Election. Willamette Law Review, 49(4): 541–61.

Weissman, S.R., & Hasan, R. (2006). BCRA and the 527 Groups. In: M.J. Malbin (ed.), The Election After Reform: Money, Politics, and the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 79–110.

Whitehouse, S. (2017). Captured: The Corporate Inflitration of American Democracy. New York, NY: New Press.


Published : 2017-07-20

LaidlerP. (2017). Does The U.S. Campaign Finance System Favor Republicans?. Political Preferences, (14). Retrieved from

Paweł Laidler
Uniwersytet Jagielloński w Krakowie  Poland

The Copyright Owners of the submitted texts grant the Reader the right to use the pdf documents under the provisions of the Creative Commons 4.0 International License: Attribution-Share-Alike (CC BY-SA). The user can copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose.

1. License

The University of Silesia Press provides immediate open access to journal’s content under the Creative Commons BY-SA 4.0 license ( Authors who publish with this journal retain all copyrights and agree to the terms of the above-mentioned CC BY-SA 4.0 license.

2. Author’s Warranties

The author warrants that the article is original, written by stated author/s, has not been published before, contains no unlawful statements, does not infringe the rights of others, is subject to copyright that is vested exclusively in the author and free of any third party rights, and that any necessary written permissions to quote from other sources have been obtained by the author/s.

If the article contains illustrative material (drawings, photos, graphs, maps), the author declares that the said works are of his authorship, they do not infringe the rights of the third party (including personal rights, i.a. the authorization to reproduce physical likeness) and the author holds exclusive proprietary copyrights. The author publishes the above works as part of the article under the licence "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International".

ATTENTION! When the legal situation of the illustrative material has not been determined and the necessary consent has not been granted by the proprietary copyrights holders, the submitted material will not be accepted for editorial process. At the same time the author takes full responsibility for providing false data (this also regards covering the costs incurred by the University of Silesia Press and financial claims of the third party).

3. User Rights

Under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license, the users are free to share (copy, distribute and transmit the contribution) and adapt (remix, transform, and build upon the material) the article for any purpose, provided they attribute the contribution in the manner specified by the author or licensor.

4. Co-Authorship

If the article was prepared jointly with other authors, the signatory of this form warrants that he/she has been authorized by all co-authors to sign this agreement on their behalf, and agrees to inform his/her co-authors of the terms of this agreement.

I hereby declare that in the event of withdrawal of the text from the publishing process or submitting it to another publisher without agreement from the editorial office, I agree to cover all costs incurred by the University of Silesia in connection with my application.