There is most probably no other political office in the world that requires so deep a pocket to win than that of the president of the United States. During their 2020 campaigns, then incumbent President Donald Trump and his challenger, Joe Biden, spent a combined $5.7 billion (€5.2 billion) to win over the hearts and minds of voters — a new record for a US presidential election, according to OpenSecrets, a US nonprofit which tracks and monitors campaign finance and lobbying.

This year's presidential campaigns are seemingly running just as smoothly when it comes to funds, with the war chest of Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic Party's candidate, bulging from the $310 million she reportedly received in donations in July alone.

In the same month, Republican Party candidate and former US President Donald Trump claimed to have received about $138 million in contributions, news agency Reuters reported.

The huge sums are raised not only through donations from countless small donors, but mainly from the superrich and corporate America.

Money makes US politics

It's no secret that those donating to fundraising campaigns often hope to foster their own goals with their contributions.

LinkedIn co-founder and Microsoft board member Reid Hoffman, for example, made a $7 million contribution to the Democratic campaign, telling television news channel CNN later that he isn't happy with the head of the US Federal Trade Commission, Lina Khan, who was "waging war on American business." He openly expressed his hope that Harris would "replace" her. 

Trump, meanwhile, has also received political and financial backing from big donors, including Timothy Mellon, scion of the Pittsburgh banking family, who has put $50 million behind Trump. Tech investor David Sacks and Tesla CEO Elon Musk are also backing Trump.

Close allies of Musk have formed a so-called super PAC to support Trump, which is expected to pump millions of dollars into Trump's reelection campaign. No Musk donations to the group have yet been disclosed to the Federal Election Commission, but those close to the billionaire have said he is expected to financially support the effort.

The so-called super Political Action Committees (super PACs) are independent political organizations to which donors can give unlimited amounts of money, while donations to individuals or non-super PACs are capped.

During a live chat with Elon Musk on his social media platform X on Monday, August 12, Trump signaled his willingness to offer the Tesla CEO a role in his administration in a proposed so-called government efficiency commission. "I think it would be great to just have a government efficiency commission that takes a look at these things and just ensures that taxpayer money... is spent in a good way," said Musk. "I'd be happy to help out on such a commission."

Supreme Court ruling opened donation spigots

In 2010, the US Supreme Court issued a ruling that's become a landmark in campaign-funding jurisdiction. Jörg Hebenstreit, an expert on US domestic politics and campaign finance at the University of Jena in Germany, described it as a turning point in US politics. 

The court ruled that "corporations may enjoy the same rights as natural persons," meaning that any restriction on political campaign financing is ultimately censorship, which is illegal. "Since 2010, you can basically raise as much money as you want, whether you're a corporation, a bank, a union, an interest group, or a wealthy individual," Hebenstreit told DW.

However, there are restrictions on direct donations. Currently, an individual can donate a maximum of $6,600 directly to candidates and their teams in the primary and general elections. In addition, there is the option to support a preferred candidate through PACs. Most PACs represent businesses, unions or interest groups and collect donations from members or employees. Individuals can donate up to $5,000 per year to such PACs. They can also give up to $41,300 per year to national party organizations.

The super PAC workaround

However, those seeking to donate more than the mandated limits can establish super PACs which are essentially independent lobbying groups. The condition is that their advertising must not be directly coordinated with the candidates' campaigns. This condition is officially monitored by the Federal Election Commission. But Hebestreit said that the "coordination ban" can be "circumvented through dozens of loopholes."

According to OpenSecrets, during the current campaigns for US president, some 2,257 super PACs have already been formed. They've collected a combined $2 billion in donations, of which some $700 million have already been spent.

James Davis, a US political scientist from the University of St. Gallen in Switzerland, told DW that the sums are "staggering" and that analysts have "never seen anything like this before."

Does campaign money wield influence?

But Hebestreit pointed out that research had shown that donations "actually have little effect" in US presidential campaigns. "Both candidates are usually well-known, and whether they invest another $100 million ultimately has no impact on the actual election outcome," he said.

Davis believes a minimum level of donations is certainly necessary to build a party organization for the campaign, and that it's "crucial" to motivate people to actually go to the polls. "At the end of the day, though, it's important to have a message that resonates with voters," he added, pointing to Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign, which raised much more money than her rival Trump, but still didn't help her win.

What often happens, though, is that big donors are able to secure influence on politics even after the election. "When someone donates millions it won't be a coincidence if that person eventually receives an invitation to an event where the newly elected president just happens to be present," said Davis.

Hebestreit added that some donors are even offered Cabinet posts, ambassadorial jobs or other diplomatic positions, which open up doors to the corridors of power in the administration.

Much despised, but essential in US politics

According to an opinion poll conducted by the Washington-based Pew Research Center, seven out of 10 US adults want limits on the amount individuals or organizations can donate to political campaigns. Eight out of 10 respondents believe people who donate money to political campaigns have too much influence on the decisions of Congress members, the independent nonpartisan think tank found.

However, Hebenstreit believes there is little chance of curbing these financial flows because a change in the laws would require a political majority in Congress, which is currently lacking. After all, one reason why US campaigns are so expensive is that unlike those in other countries, they cannot rely on public campaign financing, he added.

Additionally, the entire party apparatus has to be rebuilt for each presidential election, Davis explained. "You could almost say that a party only comes together on a federal level every four years, which means that this organization has to be rebuilt every four years, in 50 states and in the respective districts," he said.

And finally, in a media-driven country like the US where most of the big networks are in private hands, running nationwide campaigns costs a lot of money.

This article was originally written in German.