Most Significant Problem With The US Electoral System Is Campaign Finance Flashcards
(8 cards)
Introduction
The US Electoral system has long faced criticism for issues that undermine democratic fairness- voter suppression, the Electoral College and gerrymandering among them. However beneath these individual faults lies a structural driver: the failure to reform campaign finance. Unregulated and overwhelming flows of money distort democratic accountability, entrench elite interests and enable systemic dysfunction. This essay argues that while voter suppression, the Electoral College and gerrymandering are serious problems, they are symptoms of a deeper pathology- the unchecked influence of money in politics, which sustains and magnifies these flaws.
1: voter suppression v Campaign Finance Reform
It could be argued that voter suppression is among the most pressing flaws in the US electoral system because it directly disenfranchises voters- particularly minorities, the elderly and low-income groups- undermining the democratic right to vote
Georgia’s 2021 voting law curtailed access to absentee ballots and ballot drop boxes, resulting in significant logistical challenges in urban counties like Fulton, disproportionately affecting Black voters.
Texas’s SB1 law in the same year imposed restrictions on early voting hours and required stricter ID verification for mail-in ballots, effectively limiting turnout in Democratic strongholds like Houston.
North Carolina’s 2013 voter ID law was found by federal courts to “target African Americans with almost surgical precision,” requiring documentation that many could not easily obtain.
These measures are not isolated—they represent a pattern of legislative suppression that obstructs political equality at its most fundamental level.
1: voter suppression vs campaign finance reform
However, the lack of campaign finance reform is a more foundational issues because it enables and sustains the very infrastructure of voter suppression through powerful, unregulated funding networks.
Following Trump’s defeat in 2020 and his unsubstantiated claims of widespread fraud, dark money group Heritage Action for America launched a $24 million campaign to support restrictive voting laws in eight battleground states, helping craft and pass legislation that limited mail-in ballots and drop boxes.
Similarly, ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council), funded by major corporate donors, drafted and lobbied for state-level Voter ID laws—legislation which disproportionately impacts minority voters, college students, and the elderly. This was made possible by Citizens United v. FEC (2010), which allowed unlimited independent political expenditures by corporations and unions, unleashing a torrent of spending behind voter restriction efforts.
These wealthy entities not only shape public opinion through advertising but fund the legal and political efforts that advance suppression laws in state legislatures.
While suppression laws disenfranchise individuals, it is the dark money and lobbying power of donors that build and defend these laws, making campaign finance reform the more urgent and systemic problem.
2: electoral college v campaign finance reform
It could be argued that Electoral college is a more significant issue than campaign finance, as it fundamentally undermines the principle of political equality by allowing a president to be elected without winning the national popular vote.
This occurred in 2000 and 2016, and almost again in 2024—Trump’s narrow victories in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Georgia delivered him the presidency despite Harris winning the popular vote by over 1.5 million.
The Electoral College disproportionately empowers smaller states: a vote in Wyoming carries roughly four times more weight than one in California.
In 2024, both campaigns overwhelmingly focused on battleground states—Trump and Harris made 52 combined visits to Michigan and Pennsylvania alone—ignoring deep-red or deep-blue states entirely.
Policies such as fracking remained prominent in Pennsylvania debates due to its swing state status, showing how the system skews national priorities toward electorally strategic regions rather than national consensus.
2: electoral college vs campaign finance reform
However, campaign finance reform remains the more significant and structural issue because it funds and protects the very institutions that uphold the Electoral College.
Efforts to reform or bypass the system through the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) have faced fierce resistance from well-funded PACs like Protect the Electoral PAC and Koch-backed groups like Americans for Prosperity, which represent resource-rich, low-population states that benefit from electoral overrepresentation.
In the 2020 and 2024 elections, over 70% of all campaign spending went to just seven swing states—Florida alone received $237 million in ad spending in 2020—because these were the states where votes “mattered.” Super PACs like Priorities USA Action (Democratic) and America First Action (Republican) channelled nearly all their advertising into these battlegrounds, reinforcing the geographic distortions caused by the Electoral College.
This creates a feedback loop: financial incentives dictate candidate strategies, which reinforce state-based vote disparities, which in turn generate more financial investment in only a few locations.
Without curbing the financial structures that feed this imbalance, the Electoral College will remain politically untouchable. Thus, while the College distorts electoral fairness, campaign finance is the mechanism that sustains its inequities.
3: gerrymandering v campaign finance reform
It could be argued that gerrymandering is a severe problem in the US electoral system, as it allows partisan actors to manipulate district boundaries to predetermine electoral outcomes, thereby nullifying voter choice
In 2021, Republican legislatures in states like Texas and North Carolina redrew congressional maps that skewed representation significantly despite roughly equal partisan voter support.
In North Carolina, Republican lawmakers used “cracking” techniques to dilute Democratic-leaning urban centres like Raleigh and Charlotte by splitting them across multiple rural, GOP-dominated districts.
In Texas, “packing” tactics concentrated Democratic voters in cities like Austin into as few districts as possible—Austin was split into six congressional districts, with only one favorably Democratic.
These manipulations created “safe seats,” weakened electoral competitiveness, and ensured partisan dominance without proportional voter support.
3: Gerrymandering v Campaign finance reform
However, the failure to reform campaign finance is a more urgent problem because it fuels and entrenches the very gerrymandering practices that subvert democratic choice.
In 2010, the Republican State Leadership Committee (RSLC)’s REDMAP initiative raised over $30 million to win state legislatures in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and North Carolina—strategic wins that allowed Republicans to control the post-census redistricting process. This funding allowed gerrymandered maps that favoured GOP candidates for a decade.
The cycle repeated in 2020, when the National Republican Redistricting Trust (NRRT), backed by powerful donors, coordinated with state legislatures to protect gerrymandered maps in Texas and North Carolina.
These efforts are sustained by dark money channels and Super PACs that bankroll candidates supportive of aggressive partisan redistricting. In the absence of finance regulation, wealthy donors are able to manipulate not just campaign outcomes, but the very geography of voting itself. While gerrymandering distorts districts, it is campaign finance that determines who draws the maps, how, and why—making reform of political money the more foundational solution.
Conclusion
While the U.S. electoral system suffers from multiple, deeply embedded problems—voter suppression, the Electoral College, and gerrymandering—each of these is sustained and magnified by the unchecked influence of campaign finance. Dark money, elite donors, and unregulated PACs not only shape political discourse but fund the legal and institutional frameworks that perpetuate democratic inequality. The 2024 presidential election reaffirmed this: despite record spending and digital outreach, the same systemic disparities remained untouched, protected by powerful financial interests. Therefore, until campaign finance is reformed, no other aspect of the U.S. electoral system can be truly democratic. It is the most urgent and significant challenge to political equality in the United States.
