Amid a heightened scrutiny in recent decades for states and the federal government to enact campaign finance reform and limit the influence of cash in politics, 11 states allow candidates to raise unlimited contributions.
That number doesn’t include Georgia, where a state law recently signed by Republican Gov. Brian Kemp adds a new meaning to the term “unlimited” in campaign finance.
States with unlimited financing – tracked by the Campaign Finance Institute, a part of the nonpartisan research group Open Secrets – often cite strict laws mandating disclosure and transparency to defend the embrace of money in politics. They also note that their systems ensure a level playing field.
But that’s not the case in Georgia, analysts note. Not only could the new law – described by analysts as an “incumbent protection scheme” – offer the current governor a massive advantage in a crucial race next year, but it has the possibility of being exported to other states where it could reshape the way elections are run.
“It’s very unique in that we have a number of states that have unlimited contributions for all races, applies to all candidates,” says Brendan Glavin, a senior data analyst for Open Secrets. “What they’ve done in Georgia is they’ve carved out an exception that basically bypasses the established contribution limits – the contribution limits that are part of the Georgia statutes – and bypasses that for a select group of candidates.”
Kemp’s campaign created a leadership committee made possible by the exception in July, just days after the law went into effect, as reported first by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. The law allows governors, lieutenant governors and nominees for either position to create committees that have no caps on individual contributions. The law also covers party leadership positions in both chambers of the state legislature, according to Open Secrets.
Political Cartoons
As Kemp gears up for his reelection campaign in 2022, this new wrinkle in the state’s campaign finance law gives him and other incumbents a distinct fundraising advantage, according to experts.
“It essentially amounts to an incumbent protection scheme,” Glavin says. “The sitting governor, who was the first one to set up one of these committees, he can, right now, he can go out and solicit unlimited contributions to this new committee, this leadership committee, and begin establishing a war chest for his upcoming reelection.”
Kemp’s opponent – whomever it ends up being – can’t set up a similar committee until after she or he becomes the nominee. Stacey Abrams, the prominent Georgia Democrat, could possibly run against Kemp next year after losing a tight gubernatorial race in 2018.
Glavin notes that in states such as Michigan and North Carolina, candidates can set up similar committees that allow for unlimited contributions, but they are strictly used for legal defense funds. The Georgia law, on the other hand, is “carving a loophole” for those in power in the state, he says – making election opponents more likely to fall behind in fundraising.
“What’s interesting here is that they’ve created this, essentially, law that almost by design is going to benefit incumbents,” says David Primo, a professor of political science and business administration at the University of Rochester and author of a 2020 book about campaign finance. “And so usually you don’t see something that’s so transparently anti-challenger. Usually it’s at least couched in some sort of rhetoric about campaign finance. That’s what makes this a little bit unusual.”
Primo adds, “This is a pretty complex structure. And again, what does complexity do? It benefits those who have the funds and the resources, i.e. incumbents, to manage that complexity.”
In a similarly complex way, the impact of the Georgia law can have a reach beyond just helping individual candidates, says Kent Redfield, an emeritus professor of political science at the University of Illinois at Springfield. Redfield notes in an email that the leadership committees made possible by the law “can become conduits for unlimited private money flowing into the system,” depending on how the law is carried out.
“This also can work to consolidate power in the hands of legislative leaders or statewide officials and weaken the power of individual legislators,” he says.
It’s too early to know whether the Georgia law will influence incumbents in other states, but experts say it is certainly a possibility.
“It’s possible that it might spur interest among other state legislatures, since Georgia has been the focus of laws regarding voting processes,” Kenneth Gross, a partner at the law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP and campaign finance expert, says, referring to the state’s recent actions on voting rights.
Primo says the chance that a similar campaign finance law will pop up in another state “depends a lot on the nature of the relationship between the governor and the legislature” and whether such an action would be “mutually beneficial.” Glavin adds that, regardless, politicians “are certainly keeping an eye on” the law and its effects.
“If they see that they can get away with it in Georgia, it’s going to encourage other people to come up with similar schemes in their states if they can,” he says.
Whether the law will actually encourage copycats elsewhere doesn’t change the fact that campaign finance law being complex and open to loopholes isn’t necessarily a novel concept. Redfield points to a quirk in Illinois’ law, where a candidate self-funding his or her campaign to a certain amount can lift all fundraising limits – something that played out in the state’s gubernatorial race in April, according to the Chicago Sun-Times. Primo adds that the Georgia law is just another example of the impact of the landmark Citizens United decision in 2010, where “all of a sudden, outside groups can spend unlimited amounts of money on campaigns.”
“This is what happens when you have … a set of campaign finance laws that are the result of 40 years of Supreme Court decisions that have moved the goalposts in terms of what’s allowable, what’s not allowable,” he says.
