Opinion: Why Republicans are joining the fight against money in politics

Of all the problems I observed over the nine years I served in Congress, none were as corrosive to the functioning of our political system as the tremendous sums of cash spent to influence elections.

Since I left Washington in 2001, the role of money in politics has only gotten worse. Outside spending in the 2022 midterms topped $2 billion, which then nearly doubled in 2024. Early projections for 2026 suggest that another record will topple.

As spending has dramatically increased, so too has the salience of the issue among voters. Pew recently found “the role of money in politics” to be among Americans’ top concerns for the second year in a row, ranking higher than inflation and the cost of healthcare. Long assumed to be an issue exclusively of the left, it is a top issue of concern among Republican voters, according to Pew, and is the only issue that supermajorities of both Democrats and Republican voters said is a “very big problem.”

With tough reelection campaigns ahead, the shifting politics on the issue has some Republicans increasingly warming up to campaign finance reform.

Rep. Tom Barrett (R-Mich), who represents a swing district and faces a challenging reelection effort, recently introduced Joint House Resolution 191, a constitutional amendment that would allow Americans to limit the sums of money spent in campaigns. 

Unlike many constitutional amendments introduced in Congress, Barrett’s proposal is not merely symbolic. It reflects a growing recognition among Republicans that frustration with unlimited political spending is no longer confined to Democratic voters or progressive activists.

Barrett is not alone in the Republican Party. In the last few years, state legislatures in deep red states like Utah, Idaho and Oklahoma have approved resolutions calling on Congress to pass an amendment like Barrett’s, all of which were broadly supported, sponsored or introduced by Republicans. The Sutherland Institute, a conservative think tank, recently endorsed the amendment, arguing that it would “help restore equilibrium to our constitutional system, allowing states to once again function as ‘laboratories of democracy.'”

The ways in which money distorts legislative incentives in Congress are plentiful, but the committee system is the most egregious example. 

Committee memberships — assigned by party leadership — carry enormous power: overseeing federal spending, shaping tax policy, regulating entire industries. While these assignments are meant to reflect expertise or merit, the most desirable committee seats go to the top fundraisers for the national party. Those members, in turn, attract even more money from donors eager to shape policy from the inside. Power flows to those who raise cash; cash flows to those with power. Round and round the corrosive cycle goes.

Rank-and-file legislators are caught in the same machine. In an era of unlimited campaign spending, any member of Congress can face a well-financed primary challenge at any moment. Survival requires staying in good standing with party leaders who can either marshal or withhold the money needed to fend off a challenge — and the party demands loyalty in return. 

Over time, that pressure has hollowed out the political center. The moderate Republicans and Democrats who once helped broker compromise have nearly vanished. The predictable result is a system that punishes independence and rewards tribalism.

The time required to fundraise also means less time doing the actual job of legislating and serving constituents. Both parties maintain fundraising offices steps from the Capitol. Members — especially new ones — are pressured to spend hours each day on the phone with donors instead of meeting with constituents or doing the actual work of legislating. Miss enough call time and it gets recorded and tracked for party leaders to remember when it’s time to hand out committee assignments.

Congress didn’t always work this way. For most of American history, it was American voters who influenced the rules on campaign spending through the representatives we elected.

Then, in 1976, the Supreme Court ruled in Buckley v. Valeo that spending money in elections is a form of protected speech, striking down most limits on campaign expenditures. Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission extended that logic to corporations, unions and outside groups, allowing unlimited spending so long as it wasn’t “officially” coordinated with a candidate. Late last month in National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, the U.S. Supreme Court substantially eroded even those guardrails.

Waiting for the Supreme Court to reverse course on 50 years of jurisprudence is not a realistic strategy. The only durable, realistic option we have to restore the ability to regulate campaign spending is to pass a constitutional amendment. 

The Republicans who join Barrett on the issue of money in politics will come from different places. Some will represent competitive districts where independents will decide the election. Some will represent safe seats but have watched primary fundraising spiral into something none of them quite recognize from earlier in their careers. Some will simply believe that voters, not donors, should set the country’s agenda. 

What unites them is the recognition that the politics of this issue have shifted — and that the voters of both parties are well ahead of Washington in noticing.

Tom Campbell is a former Republican member of the U.S. House of Representatives from California and a professor of law and a professor of economics at Chapman University. He left the Republican Party in 2016 and is in the process of forming the Common Sense Party of California. 

For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to The Hill.