The influence of private money in politics is one of the most serious threats to our democracy. Politicians, who depend on huge sums to run their campaigns, respond more to the concerns of wealthy donors and special interests than they do to the concerns of their constituents. Those without access to wealth are locked out of the system, unable to afford running for office.
How is private money influencing politics in Michigan?
GOVERNOR
-Both Democrat Jennifer Granholm and Republican Dick Posthumus accepted public funding for their 2002 gubernatorial general election campaigns.
-As a condition for taking $1.125 million each from the taxpayers, the candidates were obligated to limit their campaign committee spending to $2 million.
-However, due to independent expenditures, gubernatorial spending far exceed the supposed $4 million limit.
Secretary of State
-Republican Terri Lynn Land had $2.46 million in financial support, a 3.5:1 money advantage over her opponent, Melvin Butch Hollowell. Land’s family put up $2.17 million, 88 percent of the total.
-The West Michigan Leadership Caucus (WMLC) gave $34,000 directly to the Land campaign and made $360,000 worth of independent expenditures supporting Ms. Land.
ATTORNEY GENERAL
-The Michigan Chamber of Commerce spent about $485,000 for television issue ads, while the Michigan Democratic Party spent approximately $500,000 for issue ads. None of this spending is disclosed on any campaign finance report.
MICHIGAN SENATE
-34 out of 38 winners had more financial backing than their opponents.
MICHIGAN HOUSE
- 93% of the winners had more financial backing than their opponent.
APPELATE JUDICIARY
-The Chamber spent about $840,000 extolling the qualities of the incumbents and their work on the bench.
-All nine incumbents who sought reelection were winners and seven of them were unchallenged.
-Bill Schuette had better than a five-to-one money advantage over Democrat James Cavanagh in the general election. He broke the previous Court of Appeals fund raising record of $398,000 set by Martin Doctoroff in 1998.
SUPREME COURT
-From 1994 to 2000, the average winning candidate campaign committee had more than quadrupled from $284,000 to $1.3 million.
-A study released in 2002 by the National Institute on Money in State Politics showed that 86 percent of cases that came before the Michigan Supreme Court from 1990 to 1999 involved a litigant or counsel who had made a campaign contribution to at least one of the justices who heard their case.
Private money in Michigan is rotting our democracy in all three branches of government. Only with the development of a politics responsive to people- not money- can Americans get real movement on legislation that they care about.
What is the solution to the influence of money in Michigan politics?
One of the most successful alternatives to our current system is called ‘Clean Elections.’
In the states of Maine, Massachusetts, and Arizona voters passed Clean Money/Clean Elections legislation by initiative, and in North Carolina, New Mexico and Vermont full public financing systems for specific races have been passed by the legislature. (The Massachusetts law was invalidated by an act of the legislature).
In a Clean Elections System, candidates must collect a requisite number of $5 qualifying contributions to demonstrate public support. Once candidates break the qualifying threshold, they are allotted public financing for their campaign on the terms that they must not accept private money or use their own personal funds. This system is entirely voluntary which means that your opponent could choose not to participate. If you are outspent by such candidates, you become eligible for additional funds.
Clean Elections systems have been to increase the diversity of candidates, with increased numbers of women and minority individuals running for office, and to create more competitive elections. Both Republicans and Democrats have successfully run as “Clean Candidates.” Both candidates and the general public has observed that Clean Election Systems change the political climate in a state.
A ‘Clean Elections’ system for all federal elections would cost significantly less than the billions tax dollars that are wasted annually due to lax regulations, corporate subsidies, and corporate tax breaks.
No matter what issue you are passionate about, reform starts with campaign finance reform.
Visit for more information. Brought to you by Mount Holyoke College Democracy Matters. Contact Amanda Ruthven at about becoming involved.