Fix elections by allowing unlimited campaign cash

American elections are in desperate need of reform. Campaigns are driven almost exclusively by fundraising, and the major parties’ platforms are centered around presenting the other party as an existential threat to democracy. Voters are forced to accept that each election might be the end of the republic and their only choices are between campaigns that appeal to the base emotion of fear.

Both Democrats and Republicans have promoted election reforms, but they are motivated by ensuring the best results for themselves, not to restore faith and balance to the system itself.

While much has been written and discussed about how the actual conduct of elections should take place, little attention has been given to the driving force behind all campaigns: money.

The fundraising environment for American elections has produced opportunities for hyperpartisan, divisive candidates and, except for the safest voting districts, these candidates have proven largely unelectable. Notwithstanding, these candidates generate enthusiasm with combative crisis rhetoric within the base and raise a lot of money in small dollar donations for themselves and friendly super PACs. Hundreds of millions of dollars get spent to propagate their rhetoric and drown out substantive platforms and generally electable people.

What enables this is, ironically, the very legislation that was initially intended to address the problem. The Federal Election Campaign Act and the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act have been disasters for our elections by incentivizing super PACs and forcing campaigns to constantly dial for dollars in order to keep pace with election cycles.

While these laws’ intent was to create transparency and address the role of dark money and the influence of wealthy donors, the outcomes have been the opposite. While capping spending and contributions are noble in theory, FECA and BCRA provide a litany of loopholes, helping to create a flourishing environment for super PACs and more dark money, obscuring or who is being spending money where.

Voters, regulators and campaigns are left with an impossible regulatory environment and perverse fundraising incentives. It is time to revisit these restrictions and ultimately eliminate them.

The cap on contributions requires candidates to spend many hours dialing for donations. One congressman estimated that members spend 20 to 30 hours a week fundraising. To be successful, they need to make a splash, and many of the top fundraisers have consistent presence in the media. They pitch donors with partisan theatrics, appealing to emotion and emphasizing the existential threat posed by their opponents. Rarely do you see a sober presentation on meaningful policy issues or promoting an important piece of legislation. When every small donation matters, emotion is the most relevant factor.

Campaign finance should facilitate consequential and substantive debate. Spending should enable campaigns to amplify their message (while ensuring transparency). However, when money is raised piecemeal, it is difficult to run a substantive campaign because substance doesn’t generate enthusiasm.

Voters must ask themselves what is more important: the amount of the spending or that it is all reported. If campaign finance laws are amended to eliminate contribution and spending limits and impose broader transparency in fundraising, such simple reforms could revitalize the campaign environment.

Eliminating contribution limits frees up campaigns to do early, bulk fundraising, saving them precious time to actually do their jobs as elected officials. Eliminating spending limits gives parties the ability to bring in more money and encourages donors to contribute directly to campaigns that can control all of the spending from start to finish, without worrying about technically unaffiliated groups making “mistakes” like leaking a debate strategy. Broad disclosure rules eliminate dark money, put downward pressure on campaigns to consider who is fundraising them and enable voters to make informed choices on Election Day.

A campaign that can raise $5 million from 10 people can focus on substance while one that has to spend four to six hours a day trying to get $1,000 at a time cannot.

There isn’t a popular demand to put more money into politics, to say the least. But Americans need to look at their election system soberly and consider whether the current model is productive, healthy or even sustainable. While the specifics of campaign finance reform may be unpalatable, the consistent rejection by American voters of extreme candidates (except in the safest voting areas) is a mandate for change. America now needs leaders who are willing to pursue it.

Richard Protzmann is an attorney in Southern California specializing in commercial and appellate litigation. He has been published in the Washington Times, National Interest, Marine Corps Gazette, Task & Purpose and other outlets.