Anger Against Big Money Is Changing the Race for President

When voters go to the caucus on Monday or their polling place in New Hampshire the week after, they'll do so angry at Washington and politicians and a political system they think too often works for the wealthiest at the expense of everyone else and that anger will influence who they pick.
This post was published on the now-closed HuffPost Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and posted freely to our site. If you need to flag this entry as abusive, send us an email.

Here are some comments from the campaign trail over the past few months:

“If you’re a Washington lobbyist, if you make your money in and around Washington, things are doing great.”

“We shouldn’t say one thing for votes, and another for NYC money.”

“He’s never here, but in Iowa or New York at hedge fund places raising money and whatever it is he’s doing.”

“I like the idea of smaller contributions. ... It would be much more effective than having to go suck up to billionaires.”

Who made these comments? Not Sen. Bernie Sanders. Each statement above was uttered by a Republican presidential candidate.

The issue of money in politics--not just who’s raised the most money or bought the most TV ads, but how the dominance of big donors shuts regular Americans out of the political process--has been inescapable on the campaign trail for both Democrats and Republicans. As the Washington Post’s Matea Gold wrote back in April, “money in politics is unexpectedly a rising issue in the 2016 campaign.” A CNN headline earlier this month blared, “Trump and Sanders using anger against big money to build their movements”

Voters regularly ask candidates about the issue. Sanders and Donald Trump have made their message of not being “bought” a staple of their campaigns--and in interviews, many of their supporters will lift that up as a reason they’re voting for one of the two men. With the Iowa caucuses on Monday, here’s what we’ve learned so far this election cycle.

  1. Sanders’ surging support is because he has made money-in-politics a central theme of his campaign.
  2. Some of Donald Trump’s appeal comes from the same public antipathy to big-money politics that Sanders is tapping into.
  3. Whatever position Jeb Bush ends up in after Iowa, money still matters--a lot.

1. Sanders’ surging support is because he has made money-in-politics a central theme of his campaign. As CNN reported earlier this month, Sanders “can hardly talk about anything else.”

In nearly every stump speech, in the debates, and in interviews, he goes back to his core message: we need a system that works for all of us, not the wealthy donors. A Bloomberg/Des Moines Register poll from September found that 94 percent of likely Democratic Iowa caucus-goers were unsatisfied or “mad as hell” about the amount of money in politics. An Every Voice/Democracy Corps poll, conducted in December, found that Democrats who talk about their reform plans get a boost in the polls.

Sanders, along with his opponents Hillary Clinton and Gov. Martin O’Malley, all released strong, comprehensive money-in-politics reform plans early in the campaign and have regularly talked about these solutions.

And, just days before voters go to the caucus Sanders released an ad campaign that is almost entirely about money’s influence in politics (emphasis added): “Goldman Sachs just settled with authorities for their part in the crisis that put seven million out of work and millions out of their homes. How does Wall Street get away with it? Millions in campaign contributions and speaking fees. Our economy works for Wall Street. Because it’s rigged by Wall Street. And that’s the problem. As long as Washington is bought and paid for, we can’t build an economy that works for people.”

Regardless of the final outcome in Iowa, Sanders’ greater than expected support is based on the fact that voters trust he’s un-bought and un-bossed.

2. Some of Donald Trump’s appeal comes from the same public antipathy to big money politics that Sanders is tapping into. While Every Voice is very alarmed and concerned that Trump’s message includes so much intolerance and bigotry, it’s clear that his “self-funding” and message of being free from the influence of lobbyists and super PACs has become a major benefit to his candidacy.

The Bloomberg/Des Moines Register poll mentioned above found nearly as strong opposition to money in politics from Republicans as Democrats. Ninety-one percent of likely GOP Iowa caucus-goers were unsatisfied or “mad as hell” about the issue of money in politics. A New York Times poll from this summer found that Republicans “were almost as likely to favor further restrictions on campaign donations” as Democrats.

When prominent evangelical leader Jerry Falwell, Jr. introduced Trump at Liberty University, he said, “He cannot be bought, he's not a puppet on a string like many other candidates ... who have wealthy donors as their puppet masters. And that is a key reason why so many voters are attracted to him.” His tweets on the subject go viral.

Whether it’s a retiree in Indiana, a utility worker in South Carolina, or an Iowa voter telling CNN "I just believe our country is so corrupt with our politicians now that I don't think there's anyone else in there other than Donald Trump that's not corrupt"--it’s a clear reason why voters support him. In her endorsement, Sarah Palin even hit this message.

And it’s worth mentioning here--Ted Cruz’s entire “Washington Cartel” campaign is about inciting grassroots anger at the big-money elite. While running for office, “You just have to surgically disconnect your shame sensor because you spend every waking money asking people for money,” he tells voters. In the past two weeks, his campaign and super PAC have released ads knocking politicians and “the fat cats who bankroll them” and “lobbyist thugs.”

3. Whatever position Jeb Bush ends up in after Iowa, money still matters--a lot. The fact that Jeb Bush’s $100 million super PAC war chest has not lead to higher poll numbers is not a sign that money doesn’t matter in elections.

Public concern about the role of money in politics isn’t just about how much is spent, but the barriers it creates for people to run and the influence those donors have if their candidates are elected.

In short, having a lot of money at your disposal (or parked at your super PAC) doesn’t make you a good candidate. But means little guarantees you won’t get far. And, just a reality check: Jeb Bush is running in a cycle when the major storyline is who is the most anti-establishment. Is there any amount of money that would throw that albatross off his neck?

Moreover, money does matter. More than $70 million has been spent on ads in Iowa alone, according to NBC News (just one-fifth of it coming from Team Bush). Marco Rubio and his allies have spent $12 million; Team Cruz has spent $6 million.

And, importantly, Bush’s donors are going to go somewhere else if he drops out. They’ll find other candidates inviting them to dinner parties and weekend retreats. They’ll still have more influence than everyone else.

It's undeniable that the influence of money in our political system is a central issue of this election. When voters go to the caucus on Monday or their polling place in New Hampshire the week after, they'll do so angry at Washington and politicians and a political system they think too often works for the wealthiest at the expense of everyone else and that anger will influence who they pick.

Popular in the Community

Close

What's Hot