If done correctly, more campaign money could benefit Chicago's political system
There is always some pompous politician or journalist spouting off about the need to take money out of politics. If conservatives followed that dictum that would amount to unconditional surrender. Liberals dominate the mainstream media, Hollywood, and academia from K-12 through grad school. That is a massive cultural advantage for liberals. Conservatives need to vastly outspend liberals if they have any hopes of electoral success.
The 2026 U.S. Senate race in Texas illustrates the enormous cost of modern campaigns. Howard Dean and the Koch brothers offered a different perspective on political investment. Although polar opposites ideologically, they both believed in building institutions that survive through the next election.
There is something fundamentally peculiar about the way Americans finance political campaigns. Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent on individual elections, much of it disappearing into television advertisements, consultants' fees and direct-mail solicitations. The election ends, the campaign headquarters closes, the consultants move on, and the political investment has little tangible value remaining.
The Texas campaign is an extraordinary illustration. Ken Paxton, the state's attorney general, defeated four-term incumbent John Cornyn for the Republican nomination. Paxton entered the general election carrying political liabilities, including a 2023 impeachment by the Republican-controlled Texas House, followed by his acquittal in the state Senate. His Democratic opponent, James Talarico, is very far to the left, both culturally and economically. Cornyn would have blown him away and would have required much less money to achieve that outcome. Now the Democrats smell blood and the spendapalooza is in full flight.
By September 22, the Senate Leadership Fund, a Republican-aligned political organization, had committed $100 million to advertising supporting Paxton. That figure has since been overtaken by additional spending and fundraising. Elon Musk contributed $158 million to the Senate Leadership Fund in September, much of it associated with the Texas contest.
A century ago, the cost of a Senate campaign might have been measured in thousands of dollars. Today, $100 million can represent merely another round of advertising.
Does it make sense to pour all of that money into one state? The Dakotas, Maine, Rhode Island, and other relatively small states possess the same two Senate seats as Texas, California, and New York. Their electorates and advertising markets are considerably smaller, although close contests can still become expensive.
As far as the morality of political spending is concerned, there is a useful distinction between money spent to obtain government favors and money spent to advance a philosophy of government. Economists call the former rent seeking. Subsidies, protective regulations, preferential tax treatment, and exclusive government contracts can produce enormous private benefits at public expense.
Not every political contribution, however, seeks a favor. Some individuals finance political activity because they believe the government has become too intrusive, too expensive, or too powerful. They don’t look for any favors, they just want the government to get off their backs. Others support candidates and organizations promoting a more expansive government role. Charles and David Koch exemplify the tension between immediate political spending and longer-term intellectual investment.
To their critics on the left they were of course equated with nefarious motives. Their defenders emphasized a consistent libertarian philosophy, extending well beyond conventional corporate concerns to criminal justice reform, civil liberties and other issues.
One of the Koch family's more enduring contributions to political debate was not an election campaign. In 1977, Charles Koch helped Ed Crane establish the Cato Institute, initially providing approximately $500,000. Nearly half a century later, Cato continues researching and advocating policies associated with individual liberty, free markets, limited government, and peace. It leans Republican but does not march in lockstep with them.
Chicago has the Illinois Policy Institute and the Heartland Institute as well as websites like the venerable Contrarian. If only they had a bigger megaphone.
That original investment produced something an election-year advertising campaign rarely does: a continuing institution. Cato's scholars publish books, articles, and research reports, participate in public debates and challenge accepted political assumptions. One need not agree with their conclusions to recognize the value of having an independent institution capable of advancing ideas that might otherwise receive limited attention.
Universities, entertainment companies, established media organizations, and professional associations also participate in shaping the intellectual environment. Their ideological outlooks vary, but many exert influence without making anything resembling a campaign contribution. Organizations such as Cato offer additional forums for competing interpretations of public policy. The greater opportunity cost of political short-termism becomes apparent when considering another unlikely source of inspiration: Howard Dean.
Dean entered the 2004 Democratic presidential campaign as a national front-runner. His candidacy faltered spectacularly in Iowa, where John Kerry won 38 percent of the caucus vote, John Edwards received 32 percent, and Dean finished a distant third with 18 percent.
Dean's unhinged speech afterward became famous as the "Dean scream." Television commentators repeatedly portrayed it as the cause of his political demise. The chronology suggests a more complicated explanation. Dean had already suffered a devastating electoral disappointment before approaching the microphone. The speech became a symbol of a collapse that was underway.
To Dean’s credit his political career, however, did not end in Iowa despite all of the mockery. In 2005, Dean became chairman of the Democratic National Committee and introduced the 50-State Strategy. His proposition was surprisingly simple: Democrats should maintain an organization throughout the country, including states and congressional districts where Republican victories had become routine.
There is nothing inherently virtuous about either party monopolizing political life. Nor does competition guarantee better government. It does, however, provide opportunities for voters to compare different approaches to taxation, education, policing, economic development, and municipal management.
The deeper problem is the obsession with immediate returns. Business executives who continually sacrifice research, employee development, and capital investment to meet quarterly earnings expectations eventually weaken their companies. Political organizations can exhibit a similar tendency. Every election becomes an emergency, and every emergency justifies another enormous expenditure.
Rather than directing virtually every available dollar toward a handful of immediately competitive races, Dean wanted permanent state organizations, trained personnel, candidate recruitment, voter registration, and continuing engagement with local communities.
The approach produced disagreements within Democratic leadership. Congressional campaign officials preferred concentrating resources where they could influence the approaching election. Dean was concerned with the party's position five or 10 years later.
Democrats regained Congress in 2006 and expanded their electoral reach in 2008. Dean's organization was one contributing factor, although the Iraq War and the banking crisis were also important. The Democratic Party still describes the 50-State Strategy as a central element of its organizational philosophy.
The same principle extends beyond national Democrats. Consider Chicago, where all nine congressional districts encompassing portions of the city are represented by Democrats. The city also has 50 aldermanic wards and a nonpartisan mayoral election scheduled for February 2027. Should conservative Republicans hoist the white flag and ignore Chicago? Chicago and other urban areas throughout the country have one thing in common. Democratic rule has delivered continuous failure at every level. This should be fertile ground for Republicans if only they could get their message out.
Imagine the scale of activity represented by $100 million. Divided equally among nine congressional districts, it would amount to approximately $11 million per district. Spread among Chicago's 50 wards, it would represent $2 million per ward.
These are illustrations of scale, not literal budget recommendations. Money committed to a federal super PAC cannot simply be transferred to municipal candidates, and campaign-finance laws differ substantially. Donors also have different purposes and priorities.
Nevertheless, the comparison raises an important question. What lasting infrastructure might be developed with resources of that magnitude and who can donate the resources? Ken Griffin has already beaten a hasty retreat to Miami. Maybe Elon Musk can see the long term benefits. The National Republican Committee would also benefit by investing in Chicago elections.
Chicago's mayoral politics provide an additional dimension. Businessman Willie Wilson and Danielle Carter-Walters, associated with Chicago Flips Red, represent slightly different approaches to challenging established political arrangements. They would be considered as reform candidates. Alexi Giannoulias is the establishment candidate. Mayor Johnson is the CTU candidate. Johnson would be the worst choice but neither one would usher in any substantial reform.
There is nothing inherently virtuous about either party monopolizing political life. Nor does competition guarantee markedly better government. It does, however, provide opportunities for voters to compare different approaches to taxation, education, policing, economic development and municipal management. There is something inherently wrong with a one party environment, however. That is Chicago in a nutshell.
There is, of course, a legitimate counterargument. Elections determine who exercises governmental power now. A party cannot indefinitely sacrifice competitive elections for the promise of future organizational benefits. That makes the allocation problem difficult, not irrelevant. As far as Chicago is concerned the conservative political movement is on life support as it is.
Political donors should also consider that the relationship between money and electoral outcomes is far from linear. A weak candidate may spend a fortune converting a landslide defeat into a narrow loss. That improvement has value, but it does not necessarily justify the expenditure. Conversely, a popular incumbent might spend tens of millions of dollars on a race that would have been won comfortably at a fraction of the cost.
Neither the size of the expenditure nor the final margin reveals what the additional dollar accomplished.
The Koch brothers' experience and Dean's 50-State Strategy approach the problem from different directions. The Kochs helped finance institutions intended to influence public policy over generations. Dean sought permanent organizations that could sustain political competition beyond the next election.
Both of them recognized a principle too often forgotten in modern politics. Institutions accumulate knowledge, relationships and credibility. Campaign advertisements generally do not.
More money in politics is never the problem. More money pursuing preferential government treatment certainly raises serious concerns. Political money that supports independent ideas, serious public debate, and durable civic institutions serves a different purpose.
The real question is not whether $100 million is an outrageous sum to spend on a political cause. It is whether, 10 or 20 years later, there will be anything left to show for it. It is certainly worth a shot for Chicago. $100 million spent on an imbecile or spend it on the start of a major shift in the political winds. It's a no-brainer.
