Q3 essays on US elections come up roughly every two years. The 2024 presidential election is the most significant data point on the campaign-finance question since Citizens United 2010. Pre-2024 the case for money-determines-outcomes looked strong; the 2024 result complicates it sharply.
Three reasons this question is likely. First, the 2024 election cost over $15.9 billion across all federal races - a record. Second, Kamala Harris outraised Donald Trump by roughly $1.5 billion to $1 billion and lost decisively. Third, Mike Bloomberg's $1 billion 2020 primary spend produced a single delegate - American Samoa - making the case that money cannot buy a poorly-positioned candidacy.
The Citizens United v FEC ruling 2010 held that corporations and unions can spend unlimited sums on independent political advocacy. This created Super PACs and dark-money groups. Total federal election spending has roughly tripled since 2010 (from around $5bn in 2008 to $15.9bn in 2024).
In 2024, around 70% of all Super PAC money came from fewer than 100 individual donors. The Adelson family, the Mellons, Elon Musk, Reid Hoffman and George Soros each gave $50m+. Money concentration translates into agenda-setting power.
House incumbents typically outraise challengers 4-to-1. The 2024 incumbent re-election rate was 96%. Money creates a near-impenetrable barrier to insurgent challengers.
The candidate who raised more money won most Senate races in 2024. Pennsylvania, Ohio and Montana were decided by candidates with significantly larger war chests. Money may not determine Presidential outcomes but it strongly shapes Senate ones.
Elon Musk gave around $250m to Trump-supporting groups in 2024 and was rewarded with a senior White House role (DOGE - Department of Government Efficiency). The relationship is the textbook example of money buying access.
The 2024 presidential election is the strongest piece of evidence against the money-determines thesis. Harris raised approximately $1.5bn vs Trump's $1bn. Trump won by 312 to 226 electoral college votes and 1.5% of the popular vote. The bigger campaign chest lost. The decisive factors were perceived inflation, immigration and the unpopularity of Biden's term.
Mike Bloomberg spent over $1bn on his 2020 Democratic primary campaign and won a single delegate (American Samoa). The textbook case that money cannot buy a poorly-positioned candidacy.
The 2024 exit poll showed economy, immigration and inflation as the top three voter concerns - all areas where Trump's positioning was perceived as stronger than Harris's. Policy positioning, not advertising spend, swung swing-state outcomes.
Bernie Sanders 2016, AOC 2018, the 2020 Trump campaign and the 2024 Harris campaign all relied heavily on sub-$200 donors. The small-dollar revolution means non-rich candidates can compete - reducing the determinative power of wealthy donors.
2024 Senate Democrat Sherrod Brown (Ohio) ran ahead of Harris by around 4 points and still lost - showing that even strong candidate quality cannot overcome a state's underlying lean. But the gap shows candidate quality matters as much as money.
The stronger answer is NO - money matters but does not determine outcomes. The 2024 result is decisive: the better-funded candidate lost the presidential race, and Bloomberg 2020 showed that money alone cannot buy a poorly-positioned campaign. Money creates structural advantages (incumbent survival, Senate fundraising) but it does not override fundamentals of issue salience, candidate quality and political conditions.
US elections are not determined by campaign finance. Money matters at the margins (incumbent races, Senate, ballot access) but the big questions - who becomes President, which party controls Congress in a wave year - turn on policy positioning, candidate quality and political conditions.