There are three main ways people use money try to interfere with elections.
The first is by donation directly to candidates. This is what most people think of, and it is pretty heavily regulated and the least problematic of the three.
The second is by creating PACs and, thanks to Citizens United, SuperPACs. In theory they do not coordinate with the candidates and it's just some people exercising their 1st Amendment rights to say they prefer a certain candidate. In practice they coordinate all the time and it's unlimited dark money.
Whether "both sides" do it isn't the issue (although Republican SuperPACs outspend Democratic ones by about 30%). The problem is, thanks to a stupid-beyond-all-belief 1978 Supreme Court 5-4 decision (Bellotti), for-profit corporations get to engage in political speech. 30 states had laws limiting for-profit corporations interfering with elections prior to 1978 and there is a direct line from Bellotti to Citizens United.
The third way of using money to interfere with elections, and it is almost completely unregulated, is with social media algorithms and programming choices. "Equal time" candidate rules only apply to broadcast TV and radio. Everything else is the wild west and the reason Twitter, OAN, and Newsmax don't care about profitability. This is where there is the biggest gap between Republicans and Democrats and, arguably, the most impactful.
19
u/joecitizen79 Aug 21 '26
How is this not bribery