by Padmini Das
This essay was selected for publication as part of the War Prevention Initiative’s Essay Un-contest on Peaceful Elections.
In any functioning democracy, elections are not just a mechanism for selecting leaders; they are also a crucial process for legitimizing governance and ensuring political stability. However, the integrity of elections is increasingly threatened by various forms of financial influence, from direct campign contributions to broader lobbying efforts. Among these, campaign finance plays a particularly pivotal role, as it directly affects how candidates raise funds, access resources, and shape their message to voters. The regulatory frameworks that govern campaign finance have become central to debates about electoral fairness and peace, as they determine the extent to which money can shape political outcomes.
In the United States, these concerns have grown significantly in the aftermath of the 2010 Citizens United decision, which allowed unlimited political spending by corporations and unions. This ruling led to the rise of super PACs (independent political action committees, which raise unlimited sums of money but aren’t permitted to contribute or coordinate directly with parties or candidates) and a substantial influx of money in elections, shifting influence toward wealthy individuals and interest groups. The result is a political landscape where financial power can easily translate into electoral influence, raising questions about fairness and the potential for political violence
Campaign finance reform, therefore, is not merely a technical adjustment but rather is a vital strategy for fostering peaceful elections, reducing political polarization, and restoring public trust in democratic institutions. This essay will explore the campaign finance policies in the U.S. as they have set a precedent that shapes the global conversation on the intersection of money and democracy.
The Link Between Campaign Finance and Election Violence
The connection between unchecked campaign finance and electoral violence is increasingly apparent in democracies. Large sums of money in politics can foster the undue influence of the wealthy, creating divisions among the broader public and weakening trust in the electoral process. There are several ways in which this dynamic unfolds:
- No caps in campaign finance, oversized influence of wealthy and corporate interests in government, sense of alienation among the populace, vulnerability to manipulation by populist politicians, political polarization and violence
When wealthy individuals or interest groups spend unlimited amounts on campaigns, it skews the political playing field, leading candidates to prioritize the interests of these powerful donors over those of the general electorate. Well-funded candidates gain greater visibility through ads and media coverage, overshadowing those with fewer resources. To secure this funding, candidates often solicit donations from wealthy individuals and interest groups, aligning their policy positions with the priorities of these donors to ensure continued backing. As policies increasingly reflect the preferences of the donor class, ordinary voters can feel neglected and alienated. This disillusionment can make segments of the populace more susceptible to the promises of populist politicians who claim to represent the “forgotten” public. Such rhetoric can deepen divisions, contributing to polarization and, in some cases, leading to election-related violence. - Dark money in campaign finance, greater leeway for negative campaign ads, political polarization and violence
Weak campaign finance regulations often allow for the presence of “dark money,” where donors are not required to disclose their identities. This enables well-funded campaigns to saturate media with negative ads that emphasize polarizing issues, heightening tensions between social groups. The anonymity of dark money can embolden campaigns to use inflammatory rhetoric without accountability. As candidates exploit these divisions to gain support, negative campaigning becomes more prevalent, which can further polarize the electorate and create an environment conducive to political violence. - Dark money in campaign finance, voter suspicion of hidden agendas and influence, susceptibility to conspiracy theories and manipulation by populist politicians, political polarization and violence
The lack of transparency around dark money sources fosters suspicion among voters, who may believe that hidden agendas and outside interests are controlling the political process. This secrecy can undermine trust in the integrity of elections, making people more vulnerable to conspiracy theories about election rigging or manipulation. Populist politicians can then leverage these beliefs, portraying themselves as the only ones standing up against a corrupt system. This dynamic can deepen distrust in democratic institutions, fuel polarization, and, in extreme cases, incite violence among segments of the electorate.
As demonstrated in all of these pathways, weak campaign finance regulations play a central role in amplifying the influence of money in politics, leading to greater distrust, disenfranchisement, and political polarization. These dynamics can destabilize elections, making democratic processes more vulnerable to unrest and violence.
Domestically, these pathways have played out dangerously well. In the U.S., inadequate regulations have created a powerful “donor class” of wealthy individuals with significant political influence. For example, billionaire donors Richard and Elizabeth Uihlein contributed nearly $3.3 million to pro-Trump groups associated with the January 6th Capitol attack. Their financial backing helped propagate false narratives about election fraud, undermining trust in the electoral process. Super PACs like the Save America PAC raised millions post-election to challenge results, perpetuating the lie of a stolen election. Ultimately, this influence played a critical role in inciting violence and destabilizing democratic institutions.
Global Examples of Campaign Finance Connected to Election Violence
The influence of money in politics, especially when campaign finance is unregulated, can increase polarization and distrust, elevating the risk of election-related violence. This dynamic is evident in countries like Kenya, Honduras, and Thailand.
In Kenya’s 2007-2008 elections, political elites exploited private funds to deepen ethnic divisions, using money to finance militias and spread divisive propaganda. As tensions grew, disputed election results triggered widespread violence, resulting in over 1,000 deaths and mass displacement. The unchecked flow of campaign funds allowed leaders to inflame societal divisions, turning political disputes into violent conflicts.
Similarly, Honduras’ 2017 elections demonstrate how financial influence can destabilize the political landscape. Allegations of unequal campaign financing and favoritism toward wealthy elites fueled perceptions of electoral fraud, leading to mass protests, violent clashes, and at least 30 deaths. Concentrated financial power amplified distrust in the electoral process, intensifying political divides and increasing the likelihood of violence when results were contested.
Thailand’s 2014 political crisis further highlights the impact of financial backing on polarization. Rival factions received substantial funding from wealthy supporters, allowing them to conduct extensive media campaigns that deepened ideological divides. This financial influence mobilized supporters, leading to mass protests and violent confrontations, ultimately resulting in a military coup that suspended democratic governance.
These examples underscore how unregulated campaign finance can magnify societal divisions and erode trust in electoral processes, making violence more likely when political tensions escalate. By contrast, countries like Germany, Canada, and the U.K., which have stricter regulations on political spending and higher levels of transparency, experience fewer instances of election-related unrest. Their emphasis on public funding and donation limits reduces the influence of private money in politics, promoting fairer elections and more peaceful transitions of power. Such global lessons emphasize the critical role of campaign finance reform in maintaining stable democracies.
How to Reform Campaign Finance Laws for Peaceful Elections
The U.S. can improve campaign finance laws by adopting reforms that emphasize transparency, limit excessive spending, and foster greater public trust—key steps that can reduce election violence and promote peaceful elections.
First, stronger disclosure requirements, like Germany’s redulatory model, would ensure transparency around political donations. Mandating that campaigns disclose donors contributing above certain thresholds, including for super PACs and “dark money” groups, would allow voters to see who is influencing elections, reducing mistrust and conspiracy narratives.
Second, public funding for campaigns, as seen in Germany and Canada, could limit the dependency on private donations, reducing the influence of wealthy individuals and special interest groups. By matching small donations with public funds, the U.S. could empower ordinary citizens and level the playing field for candidates, thereby lessening polarization driven by financial inequality in elections.
Third, imposing spending limits on both candidates and third-party groups could help prevent the financial arms race that currently dominates U.S. elections. Models like the U.K.’s regulated spending periods and caps would shift the focus from money to policy, reducing the hyper-competitive environment that fuels divisiveness.
Lastly, strengthening the Federal Election Commission’s enforcement capacity could ensure that campaign finance laws are effectively monitored and violations penalized. Independent oversight, as practiced by Canada’s Elections Canada, would contribute to public confidence in election integrity. These reforms would reduce the perception that elections can be bought, leading to fairer, less polarized contests and, ultimately, more peaceful elections.
Campaign Finance Reform Is the Way Forward
Campaign finance reforms is essential for fostering peaceful elections and maintaining democratic stability. In the U.S., the overwhelming influence of money in politics has given wealthy individuals and special interest groups disproportionate power, undermining public trust in the fairness of elections. This perception of corruption and inequality fuels political polarization and, as seen in the aftermath of the 2020 presidential election, can contribute to violence. The U.S. experience demonstrates how weak regulations can lead to a concentration of power among wealthy donors, deepening political divisions and increasing the risk of unrest. By adopting reforms that emphasize transparency, limit excessive spending, and introduce public funding, the U.S. can create a more equitable political landscape. This would help restore public trust, reduce polarization, and promote peaceful transitions of power. Learning from the successes of countries like Germany, Canada, and the U.K., the U.S. has the opportunity to strengthen its democracy and ensure fairer elections.
Author
Padmini works in corporate communications, and is also a writer and researcher. She has written extensively on topics ranging from media ethics and corporate responsibility to public policy and digital governance. Her work often explores the intersection of technology and social impact, advocating for responsible communication in both the public and private sectors. A detailed list of her works can be found here. Padmini is particularly passionate about digital peacebuilding and media literacy, focusing on how informed dialogue and ethical digital practices can foster a more equitable and peaceful global society.
(Cover photo credit: Pictures of Money)
