This week the Supreme Court of the United States handed down an important decision in the McCutcheon v. FEC case. The decision will have an impact on campaign finance and the influence that voters, supporters, individuals and entities (companies and organizations) have on the political process. To help understand the role the decision will likely have, it may help to compare financial influence to direct voter influence.
In the United States we have the Electoral College, the purpose of which is to prevent the highly populated states from making the less populated states completely irrelevant when it comes to national elections.
Very similarly, campaign finance laws previously created a slightly more balanced situation among contributors to campaigns. To a degree, limits made a little more difficult for very large donors — from either party — from buying influence and receiving quid pro quo “favors” from legislators to whom they gave large amounts of money.
Even with the limits, people or entities who had millions to give could still give millions and other people or entities that did not have as many millions to give, gave less.
With the limits removed through the McCutcheon case, (and with the next case coming before the Supreme Court on this matter most likely providing the Roberts SCOTUS with the opportunity to eliminate the individual limit completely), it will be much easier for large-dollar contributors to receive quid pro quo treatment from elected officials and — much more importantly — set the agendas of the candidates.
in terms of campaign finance, the United States will look and operate much more as the voting process would if there were no electoral college. Small supporters, like small states, will become much less relevant to the political process.
The most important thing to remember about this: “he who pays the piper calls the tune.”
Here is an excellent Washington Post article describing the campaign finance changes possible as a result of the McCutcheon decision.