Voters in Alaska are considering a ballot measure that aims to reduce the influence of big-money donors in state and local elections. It’s part of a wider conversation about money in politics, sparked by a Supreme Court decision that struck down limits on how much parties can spend in coordination with their candidates in national elections. Geoff Bennett discussed more with Daniel Weiner.
Geoff Bennett:
Well, voters heading to the polls in Alaska today are also considering a ballot measure that aims to reduce the influence of big money donors in state and local elections. It’s part of a wider national conversation about money in politics sparked by a Supreme Court decision earlier this year that struck down limits on how much political parties can spend in coordination with their candidates in national elections.
For more, we’re joined now by Daniel Weiner, senior director of the Elections and Government Program at the Brennan Center for Justice.
Thanks for coming in.
Daniel Weiner, Brennan Center for Justice: It’s a pleasure to be here.
Geoff Bennett:
So, Alaska voters are considering a $2,000 cap on individual campaign contributions. Why has campaign finance become a big issue in Alaska?
Daniel Weiner:
Well, Alaska voters actually have a pretty long history of caring about this issue. They had actually lower limits that were enacted a while back, and a court struck those down in 2021.
So this is an effort to enact new limits that would comply with the court’s decision, slightly higher, but I think it’s pretty clear that there’s a desire to have limits on money in politics in Alaska.
Geoff Bennett:
And how significant is that Supreme Court ruling in this era of massive outside spending?
Daniel Weiner:
I think the best way to understand their ruling is part of a series of rulings that have chipped away at safeguards.
Obviously, one the most famous ruling was Citizens United decided in 2010. And what that has basically done is eliminated most of the guardrails around money in our elections. And what we see, of course, is that voters don’t like this. Upwards of 80, 90 percent of voters think corruption is a big problem, and they don’t like the amount of money in politics.
Geoff Bennett:
Well, yes, on that point, there’s a Brennan Center poll from earlier this year found that nine in 10 voters believe that corruption is a big problem in politics. So why the disconnect?
Daniel Weiner:
I mean, I think this is one area where the Supreme Court is really on the wrong side of public opinion.
Now, politics costs money. You’re not going to get money out of politics. But the idea that you should have so much money coming from such a tiny number of Americans, voters don’t like that. They think it breeds undue influence and they’re not happy. They see it as a type of corruption.
And you see that in initiatives like Alaska. Voters really want to see change.
Geoff Bennett:
Who benefits the most from that Supreme Court ruling, especially heading into 2028?
Daniel Weiner:
I mean, I think that both parties have adapted to Supreme Court rulings. I think this specific Supreme Court rule, clearly,. the Republicans think that they’re going to benefit more. Democrats seem to think that too.
I predict over, the long term, though, the both parties tend to adapt to fund-raising. The real losers, honestly, are the voters, who don’t like having their elections run this way. And I think obviously another big beneficiary is the interests that can afford to make these gigantic contributions.
Geoff Bennett:
We’re also seeing more dark money in politics and groups using supposedly supportive ads that actually hurt candidates. Are disclosure laws keeping pace with how campaign money is actually being spent?
Daniel Weiner:
No, they’re not.
There’s more and more dark money in elections. It’s actually also becoming harder to track. So what happens now is, a lot of these groups that keep their donors secret, they give to super PACs, which supposedly do disclose their donors. But then, if you look at the report, there’s actually no way to tell who’s actually behind the group.
So we’re seeing more and more secret money is another thing voters are not happy about, upwards in our poll 85 percent wanted to see more transparency in elections.
Geoff Bennett:
We have also seen big spenders lose this year.
In Michigan, you had Haley Stevens, despite this huge spending advantage over Abdul El-Sayed. Does money matter less than we think?
Daniel Weiner:
You know, that’s such a great question. I think money matters. It doesn’t mean that there’s a one-to-one correspondents of dollars to votes.
I think, if you talk to most candidates, they think they need enough money. They don’t necessarily need more money, and there certainly are diminishing returns. So you have seen candidates like in Michigan who get outspent. I would say, though, that victorious candidates generally do have enough money to compete.
And so it’s not that money is irrelevant. I think it can mean oversimplification to just say whoever has the most money in their corner is always going to win.
Geoff Bennett:
Daniel Weiner, senior director of the Elections and Government Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, thanks for being here.
Daniel Weiner:
Thank you so much for having me.
