Independent U.S. presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. tapped California attorney Nicole Shanahan (left) as his running mate for vice president during an event in Oakland, California, United States on March 26, 2024.
RFK Jr.’s Choice of Running Mate Shows How Money Distorts Politics
The unlimited spending of self-funding candidates helps drive up the costs of campaigns, making them too much of a rich person’s game and limiting the choices available to voters.
Independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced Tuesday that his pick for vice president is Nicole Shanahan, a wealthy tech entrepreneur and lawyer. Shanahan’s prior political activity seems to be limited to giving money, including a $4 million donation to a pro-RFK Jr. super PAC to help fund a Super Bowl ad.
Kennedy’s campaign has raised far less than the 2024 front-runners, and he may see a running mate with the ability to self-fund as necessary to keeping his bid afloat.
In addition to the super PAC donation, Shanahan had given Kennedy’s campaign the maximum contribution of $6,600, but as a member of the ticket she can put up however much she wants. Thanks to the Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling in Citizens United, rich people, corporations, and other special interests can make unlimited donations to super PACs. But since super PACs are not supposed to coordinate their activity with campaigns, there are big advantages to Kennedy’s campaign having its own big-money spigot.
Politics should be open to all, not just a privileged few.
Kennedy’s choice highlights the crushing pressures of fundraising in today’s elections. Campaign costs have soared in the Citizens United era of unlimited donations to super PACs and “dark money” groups that keep their donors secret due to a boom in spending by the richest donors, making bigger and bigger donations increasingly essential to running for office.
The richest Americans increasingly throw their own hats in the ring, even though self-funders rarely win. In the 2022 congressional elections, 44 candidates each spent more than $1 million of their own money on their bids, and only six won. Billionaire Michael Bloomberg, the former mayor of New York, spent $1 billion on his own 2020 presidential campaign, which lasted just three months.
Even though they often lose, self-funders distort politics. Their unlimited spending helps drive up the costs of campaigns, making them too much of a rich person’s game and limiting the choices available to voters. In the 2018 Illinois gubernatorial election, voters faced a choice between two wealthy self-funders, each of whom spent tens of millions on their bids. Many otherwise promising candidates never even run, for fear of being unable to secure financing.
Some have suggested that self-funding candidates can’t be corrupted by special interests, because they are too rich to bribe. But that misses the reality that wealthy candidates typically already represent a special interest: the business and industry that got them (or their parents) rich. More generally, studies show that the affluent have different policy views than most Americans. For example, they unsurprisingly tend to oppose higher taxes on the wealthy.
Politics should be open to all, not just a privileged few. One key reform is public financing through small donor matching, which allows candidates without wealth or big donors to run people-powered campaigns. We should heed the warning of the first RFK to make a mark on American politics, who said, “we are in danger of creating a situation in which our candidates must be chosen from among the rich… or those willing to be beholden to others.”
Urgent. It's never been this bad.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just three days to go in our Spring Campaign, we're falling short of our make-or-break goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced Tuesday that his pick for vice president is Nicole Shanahan, a wealthy tech entrepreneur and lawyer. Shanahan’s prior political activity seems to be limited to giving money, including a $4 million donation to a pro-RFK Jr. super PAC to help fund a Super Bowl ad.
Kennedy’s campaign has raised far less than the 2024 front-runners, and he may see a running mate with the ability to self-fund as necessary to keeping his bid afloat.
In addition to the super PAC donation, Shanahan had given Kennedy’s campaign the maximum contribution of $6,600, but as a member of the ticket she can put up however much she wants. Thanks to the Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling in Citizens United, rich people, corporations, and other special interests can make unlimited donations to super PACs. But since super PACs are not supposed to coordinate their activity with campaigns, there are big advantages to Kennedy’s campaign having its own big-money spigot.
Politics should be open to all, not just a privileged few.
Kennedy’s choice highlights the crushing pressures of fundraising in today’s elections. Campaign costs have soared in the Citizens United era of unlimited donations to super PACs and “dark money” groups that keep their donors secret due to a boom in spending by the richest donors, making bigger and bigger donations increasingly essential to running for office.
The richest Americans increasingly throw their own hats in the ring, even though self-funders rarely win. In the 2022 congressional elections, 44 candidates each spent more than $1 million of their own money on their bids, and only six won. Billionaire Michael Bloomberg, the former mayor of New York, spent $1 billion on his own 2020 presidential campaign, which lasted just three months.
Even though they often lose, self-funders distort politics. Their unlimited spending helps drive up the costs of campaigns, making them too much of a rich person’s game and limiting the choices available to voters. In the 2018 Illinois gubernatorial election, voters faced a choice between two wealthy self-funders, each of whom spent tens of millions on their bids. Many otherwise promising candidates never even run, for fear of being unable to secure financing.
Some have suggested that self-funding candidates can’t be corrupted by special interests, because they are too rich to bribe. But that misses the reality that wealthy candidates typically already represent a special interest: the business and industry that got them (or their parents) rich. More generally, studies show that the affluent have different policy views than most Americans. For example, they unsurprisingly tend to oppose higher taxes on the wealthy.
Politics should be open to all, not just a privileged few. One key reform is public financing through small donor matching, which allows candidates without wealth or big donors to run people-powered campaigns. We should heed the warning of the first RFK to make a mark on American politics, who said, “we are in danger of creating a situation in which our candidates must be chosen from among the rich… or those willing to be beholden to others.”
Independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced Tuesday that his pick for vice president is Nicole Shanahan, a wealthy tech entrepreneur and lawyer. Shanahan’s prior political activity seems to be limited to giving money, including a $4 million donation to a pro-RFK Jr. super PAC to help fund a Super Bowl ad.
Kennedy’s campaign has raised far less than the 2024 front-runners, and he may see a running mate with the ability to self-fund as necessary to keeping his bid afloat.
In addition to the super PAC donation, Shanahan had given Kennedy’s campaign the maximum contribution of $6,600, but as a member of the ticket she can put up however much she wants. Thanks to the Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling in Citizens United, rich people, corporations, and other special interests can make unlimited donations to super PACs. But since super PACs are not supposed to coordinate their activity with campaigns, there are big advantages to Kennedy’s campaign having its own big-money spigot.
Politics should be open to all, not just a privileged few.
Kennedy’s choice highlights the crushing pressures of fundraising in today’s elections. Campaign costs have soared in the Citizens United era of unlimited donations to super PACs and “dark money” groups that keep their donors secret due to a boom in spending by the richest donors, making bigger and bigger donations increasingly essential to running for office.
The richest Americans increasingly throw their own hats in the ring, even though self-funders rarely win. In the 2022 congressional elections, 44 candidates each spent more than $1 million of their own money on their bids, and only six won. Billionaire Michael Bloomberg, the former mayor of New York, spent $1 billion on his own 2020 presidential campaign, which lasted just three months.
Even though they often lose, self-funders distort politics. Their unlimited spending helps drive up the costs of campaigns, making them too much of a rich person’s game and limiting the choices available to voters. In the 2018 Illinois gubernatorial election, voters faced a choice between two wealthy self-funders, each of whom spent tens of millions on their bids. Many otherwise promising candidates never even run, for fear of being unable to secure financing.
Some have suggested that self-funding candidates can’t be corrupted by special interests, because they are too rich to bribe. But that misses the reality that wealthy candidates typically already represent a special interest: the business and industry that got them (or their parents) rich. More generally, studies show that the affluent have different policy views than most Americans. For example, they unsurprisingly tend to oppose higher taxes on the wealthy.
Politics should be open to all, not just a privileged few. One key reform is public financing through small donor matching, which allows candidates without wealth or big donors to run people-powered campaigns. We should heed the warning of the first RFK to make a mark on American politics, who said, “we are in danger of creating a situation in which our candidates must be chosen from among the rich… or those willing to be beholden to others.”