3. The institutionalized system of US money politics has come into being.

　　In the late 19th century, US money politics developed into a “pork-barreling” political system. The political party that wins the competition usually gives official positions to those who have contributed to the election campaign, mainly the backbone of the political party and the funders who provide campaign funds for the party. “Pork barreling” has led to the spread of corruption in the political sector and among the officials, and it has also decreased the administrative efficiency. Since the beginning of the 20th century, the United States has tried to impose some restrictions on political contributions, but it has never changed the very nature of US democracy, which is money politics. The adjustments to the systems always leave loopholes and backdoors for money politics, and actually give money politics a legal status.

　　First, the “super-fundraiser” system can legally avoid donation limits. A “super fundraiser” is someone who has a lot of wealth and social connections, such as corporate executives, hedge fund managers, showbiz stars, or lobbyists. They have many connections and resources, and are able to use their personal networks to bring together a large number of small donors to raise a lot of funds for a candidate within a short period of time. For instance, in the 2016 US presidential election, 1,000 “super fundraisers” helped the Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton, to collect one-third of the personal donations for her campaign. Under the “super-fundraiser” system, a big personal donation that surpasses the limit can be divided into smaller parts that are under the limit and put under other persons’ names. That is how big donations become legalized. A candidate who receives these kinds of donations is clear about who provided him or her with such big donations. This makes it easy for the affluent people and large enterprises to trade money for political influence.

　　Second, the SCOTUS has ruled to lift restrictions on “soft money”. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002 restricted “soft money” donated to political parties to support specific candidates, namely the donations that were not restricted by the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) but used to influence federal elections. Nevertheless, this Act has been challenged constantly. In 2007, the SCOTUS ruled in Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., that the provisions of the BCRA, which restrict corporations, unions, and trade groups from funding certain advertising by political parties, violate the First Amendment’s provisions on the freedom of speech. In 2010, the SCOTUS ruled in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that provisions of the BCRA, which restrict corporations and unions from funding federal election candidates for or not for profit during the final stage of the campaign, violate the principle of freedom of expression in the US Constitution. This ruling completely vetoed the contents of the BCRA, allowing “soft money” to legally enter elections on a large scale and letting money to wantonly rush into the political sector. In 2014, the SCOTUS’ ruling in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission significantly relaxed restrictions on political contributions. It removed limits on the total amount of contributions made by an individual to federal candidates and political party committees while retaining the $2,600 limit on an individual’s donation to a candidate. This means that the wealthy people can donate to many federal candidates at the same time, and they can donate unlimitedly to the political party they support.

　　Third, super political action committees (PACs) are the most important manifestation of money politics. In addition to making political contributions directly to candidates and political parties, the wealthy class and corporations of the United States can also make political donations through super PACs. PACs came into being in the 1930s. A PAC is a political committee consisting of corporations and independent political groups, and it is organized for the purpose of raising political donations and circumventing limits on personal and corporate donations, which are imposed by relevant regulations of US laws. A PAC collects money from many individuals and then decides on the candidates it donates to. As it is closely related to certain large corporations and specific interest groups, a PAC often launches publicity campaigns to support or oppose a certain candidate and participates in elections on behalf of these corporations and interest groups. After the release of the Federal Election Campaign Act in 1971, PACs entered a period of vigorous development due to fewer restrictions. A large amount of money from corporations, individuals, and interest groups participates in the elections through the channels offered by PACs. In 2010, a ruling of the SCOTUS removed the limit on corporate and individual contributions to independent PACs. Because of this, PACs have entered their heyday, and a large number of super PACs came into being. According to data from the Political Responsibility Center, a non-partisan, non-profit research organization, as of August 8, 2016, there were 2,316 super PACs registered in the United States. Super PACs have strong fundraising capacity and exert influence on every aspect of an election. Corporations and wealthy people can inject their funds into super PACs without restrictions to indirectly affect an election. In the 2016 presidential election, the super PAC that received the most donations, which amounted to as much as $176 million, was Priorities USA Action, which was in support of the Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. Soros, the super-rich US investor, donated $6 million to Priorities USA Action, and Thomas Steyer, a hedge fund manager, contributed $57 million to another super PAC in support of Hillary Clinton.