Adjusted for exchange rates and inflation, the entire French presidential election cost about $107mn at today’s prices, slightly more than the Michigan primaries and less than those in Texas
IEP@BU does not express opinions of its own. The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors. Any errors or omissions are the responsibility of the author
It is hardly news that American elections are expensive. Very expensive. But recent developments have pushed spending to levels that would have been unimaginable until only a short time ago.
Consider the highly publicised Democratic Senate primary in Michigan between progressive candidate Abdul El-Sayed and centrist Haley Stevens. The candidates spent more than $80mn on this contest alone: $63.9mn by Stevens, $7.3mn by El-Sayed and $9.7mn by other candidates. That amounts to more than $50 per voter.
To this must be added the $17.3mn spent by Republican candidate Mike Rogers, who faced no opposition in his party’s primary but still needed to avoid disappearing from voters’ radar.
In total, Michigan’s primaries cost about $100mn.
They were not even the most expensive primaries in American history. That distinction belongs to those held in Texas a couple of months earlier. Republicans dominated the spending, with $99.2mn spent on their primary and $35.7mn on the Democratic contest, bringing the total to almost $135mn.
It is worth conducting a small comparative-politics exercise and asking how these figures compare with what Europe spends on its election campaigns.
Take the 2022 French presidential election, for which precise data are available. The candidates and the parties supporting them spent a total of €83mn. Adjusted for exchange rates and inflation, the entire French presidential election cost about $107mn at today’s prices, slightly more than the Michigan primaries and less than those in Texas.
Yet Michigan and Texas held only primaries. These amounts are therefore merely a foretaste of what is still to come. Spending in the French presidential election amounted to about $3 per voter at current prices.
The comparison with Europe shows just how far the influence of money over the US political system has escaped control. And the situation is only getting worse.
In the 2012 elections, contributions from major donors were divided more or less evenly between Democrats and Republicans, while the ten largest megadonors spent about $245mn.
After the Supreme Court effectively removed limits on independent election spending in 2010, the sums increased year after year until they reached stratospheric levels.
In the 2024 presidential election, the ten largest megadonors spent $1.19bn, with Elon Musk alone contributing $288mn.
Another major change concerns the distribution of this money. The balance has shifted radically, with spending now favouring Republicans by a ratio of three to one.
The acceleration of this democratic degeneration is partly the result of the rise of “charismatic capitalism” in the United States. For the new oligarchs, the objective is not only to advance their economic interests but also to promote their political vision, seeking to confer quasi-sovereign powers on their corporations.
Given the scale of their personal fortunes, allocating a few hundred million dollars to politics is an investment capable of producing exceptionally high returns.
Under Donald Trump, the unhealthy fusion of these new forms of economic power with public authority has become a structural feature of the US political system. Its evolution threatens the very notion of free and fair elections and places the future of American democracy at risk.
Should Europe be concerned? Yes. The tentacles of the MAGA octopus do not stop at national borders.
We have recently witnessed the activism of figures such as Elon Musk and Peter Thiel, who have used different methods to support Europe’s far right and spread misleading narratives, as the recent episode in Ceuta demonstrated.
With seven national elections due to take place in the European Union next year, the multiplication of such interference, alongside similar activities by Russia and China, represents a real danger.
European countries already possess instruments with which to defend themselves: the Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference toolbox, known as FIMI, and the Digital Services Act.
A bipartisan motion in the Italian parliament calling on the government and the European institutions to ensure the rigorous and consistent enforcement of EU rules would be a good place to start.
Who will put it forward?
A previous version of this article was published by Il Sole 24 Ore
Moreno Bertoldi is Senior Associate Research Fellow at the Italian Institute for International Political Studies (ISPI).
Since April 2023, Marco Buti has held the Tommaso Padoa-Schioppa Chair at the Robert Schuman Centre. Before joining the EUI, Buti was Chief of Staff of the Commissioner for the economy, Paolo Gentiloni. Between 2008 and 2019, he was Director-General for Economic and Financial Affairs at the European Commission. Moreover, he has been the Commission Finance Deputy at G7 and G20.
He is an IEP@BU fellow.
Policy Brief - Towards a European Security Council
·
Mar 16
Multilateralism and European integration have taught us that the essential work of institutions occurs between summits and not simply during these. It is likely with this intuition in mind that several European leaders have called for the institutionalization of such groups. In particular, the idea of a European Security Council, first emerged in the af…
Founded by Bocconi University and Institute Javotte Bocconi, the Institute for European Policymaking @ Bocconi University combines the analytic rigor of a research institute, the policy impact of a think tank, and the facts-based effort of raising public opinion’s awareness about Europe through outreach activities. The Institute, fully interdisciplinary, intends to address the multi-fold obstacles that usually stand between the design of appropriate policies and their adoption, with particular attention to consensus building and effective enforcement.
The Institute’s mission is to conduct, debate, and disseminate high-quality research on the major policy issues facing Europe, and the EU in particular, its Member States and its citizens, in a rapidly changing world.
It is independent of any business or political influence.
Marta Cartabia
President
Sylvie Goulard
Vice-President
Paloma Lopez-Garcia
Director
Silvia Colombo
Deputy Director
Carlo Altomonte
Arnstein Aassve
Valentina Bosetti
Elena Carletti
Daniel Gros
Eleanor Spaventa
Nathalie Tocci
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.