Did Progressive Era Campaign Finance Reform Work?
- Oscar Lu
- Mar 2
- 4 min read
Since the beginning of the progressive movement,
one of the key focuses has been stopping
the political influence of large corporations. The Gilded Age saw a rise in large corporations and political tycoons like Rockefeller and Carnegie. This era saw industrial giants using corruption to shape politics to favor their interests. Scandals and unequal policies made this issue more and more apparent, culminating in widespread disapproval of corporate political influence. In the Progressive Era, campaign finance reform sought to combat the political influence of large corporations by prohibiting corporations from directly donating to political campaigns. However, it did not stop corporations and elites from continuing to exert significant political influence through Super PACS, a legalized form of influence with even greater abilities to shape policy where solutions have not been legally pursued.
The Tillman Act represented an intent to curb corporate influence but proved to be ineffective due to its narrow focus. In 1907, Roosevelt signed an anti-corruption bill known as the Tillman Act that prohibited corporations from expending money “in connection with political elections” (Bitzer, 2024). However, corporations continued to fund elections by funneling money to indirect channels or donated individually on behalf of a company. Most, if not all, corporate influence in politics was rooted in their ability to provide financial support to politicians. Corporations were able to bribe and patronize politicians to favor them in the court of law or fund campaigns needed to help get these politicians elected. By taking away their ability to expend money, Roosevelt, a leading spokesman for progressivism, showed his intention to take away the influence that corporations had. However, the fact that this act only targeted direct contributions meant that the financial support could simply be transferred elsewhere to be donated to the campaign.
In 2010, Super PACS emerged as a new legal form of corporate influence, where corporations can donate an unlimited amount of money to support a politician. Political action committees (PACs) are committees that can raise unlimited sums of money from corporations, associations and individuals to openly advocate for political candidates without donating to or having any direct association to the candidates themselves, citing the First Amendment (OpenSecrets, 2024). FEC filings from July 15, 2024 through Nov. 4, 2024 show super PACs have spent approximately $668.9 million supporting Kamala Harris and $394.6 million supporting Trump during that same period (Vandewalker, 2024). Super PACS allow these corporations to exert significant influence over elections by evading individual donation limits and the Tillman Act that prevents direct donations from corporations. Although PACs are independent from the candidates they support, they have an ability to raise and spend an unlimited amount of money that substantially impacts the political landscape, especially in a modern age dominated by public opinion amplified by social media and highly accessible end-to-end news coverage. The example of Super PACS supporting the two high-profile presidential candidates in 2024 demonstrates the scale of financial influence. The unlimited spending boosts corporate political power to an unrestricted amount, allowing them to sway public opinion to align with their own interests. Despite regulations like the Tillman Act, new loopholes have emerged, allowing for even more substantial financial influence.
Super PACs allow wealthy individuals and corporations to exert significant influence over political campaigns, ultimately securing political power and creating new advantages once their preferred candidates are in office. For example, in the 2024 Presidential Election, Elon Musk raised over $200 million through the America PAC to support Trump’s campaign (Merica, 2024). Musk was later appointed as an efficiency advisor for Trump, overseeing government spending, while his companies have received $38 billion in government funding (Butler et al., 2025). Super PACs have enabled corporations to legally influence political campaigns. Although they cannot directly coordinate with the political candidates during campaigning, figures like Musk show how these entities can reap the benefits and gain access to political power once their preferred candidates are elected. Musk’s appointed role to oversee government spending allows Musk to benefit as he is able to position government policy in the favor of his interests, including his business empire. Musk’s status can arguably identify him as an oligarch. Musk’s situation shows that corporate wealth not only drives the elections but the policies that follow.
Since the Progressive Era where campaign finance reform tried to thwart the influence of corporations and wealthy elites, campaign finance strategies have shifted to its modern form of Super PACs. Early efforts of progressive government reform, like the Tillman Act, proved to be ineffective because its’ restrictions were too narrow. The rise of Super PACs in the 21st century allowed large corporations to legally bypass these campaign finance law restrictions. Wealthy tycoons like Musk demonstrate how financial contributions give corporations direct political access to policy making granted by the politicians they helped get into power. Despite early progressive era reforms, corporations continue to find ways to dodge laws set in place to prevent corporate influence. The evolution of campaign finance strategies call for new solutions. As of now, there are no new solutions or questioning of these strategies as it is done legally. Shown by the use of Super PACs, American politics are moving towards a situation where the voices of the wealthiest shape the future. Instead, we must address this unchecked influence and create a future where the voices of all citizens shape our democracy. We must all look through the perspective of a Progressive and recognize that we are drifting towards a modern Gilded Age, where power is concentrated. Who do you want controlling America’s future?
Comments