The National Interest Foundation Newsletter

Issue 243, July 3, 2024

Welcome to our NIF Newsletter. In this week’s edition, we analyze the massive influence of money and big donors in shaping U.S. presidential elections, examine the far-right gains during the first round of parliamentary elections in France, and delve into the Taliban’s participation in United Nations-led talks on Afghanistan which were held in Qatar.

Editor: Bassam Tarbush

---

The Massive Influence of Money and Big Donors in Shaping U.S. Presidential Elections

The Massive Influence of Money and Big Donors in Shaping U.S. Presidential Elections

Written By Camille Carter

One of the conversations that followed last Thursday night’s presidential debate was the worry plaguing large campaign donors, and the possibility of them pulling their support based on candidates’ performance. Every cycle, millions of dollars flow into the U.S. presidential election, giving candidates the ability to campaign across the country and try to garner more voters to their cause. However, as time has gone on and the figures have gotten even more massive, many fair-minded observers have raised issues with where the money is coming from, and what those individuals and groups are set to gain by funneling such large sums.

During the 2020 presidential election, Former President Donald Trump and Incumbent President Joe Biden worked to draw in donors from a variety of career fields and sources. In total, both campaigns raised a whopping $1,886,078,490.39 from 2017 through to the end of 2020, according to the Federal Elections Commission. Trump spent $808,756,415.44, of which $756,998,620.51 can be classified as operating expenses. Meanwhile, Biden spent $1,073,919,500.66, and similarly spent almost all of it ($1,056,940,033.92 to be exact) on operations. By the end of the electoral cycle, Trump was left with $10,749,401.84 in hand, and Biden was left with $260,475.37. OpenSecrets, an organization dedicated to ensuring transparency with political funding, reported that for Trump, the top three industries who had PACs that donated on his campaign’s behalf were the retired, health services/HMOs, and casinos/gambling. For Biden, the top three industries were Liberals, the retired, and finance groups. From these entities, the top donor for Trump was Las Vegas Sands, and for Biden, it was Bloomberg LP.

Former President Trump’s biggest 2020 donor – Las Vegas Sands – is a resort management company based out of Las Vegas. Owned by the Adelson family, the organization has existed for over 30 years and has opened up properties in places such as Macau and Singapore. This international business has made the Adelson family deeply invested in international relations and the outcomes of U.S. foreign policy abroad. This massive investment raises concerns for many Americans about the high levels of influence that such a big donor can have on a particular candidate or campaign. In fact, Americans have long contended that major political donors and special interest groups have too much influence on politics, and a recent Pew Research Center survey from late last year found that more than seven-in-ten U.S. adults (72 percent) believe there should be limits on the amount of money individuals and organizations can spend on political campaigns. These concerns were only multiplied back in 2017, when reports began to emerge that Sheldon Adelson – who was head of the Adelson Foundation at the time – had been giving Trump advice on his Middle Eastern policies and potentially influenced the decision to move the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. During this 2024 electoral cycle, we have already seen the concerted effort of dark money sources to inject massive and unprecedented amounts of funds into certain campaigns, in an attempt to elect pro-Israel candidates and silence the wide-scale criticism towards Israel for its ongoing destructive Gaza War.

Bloomberg LP, President Biden’s largest 2020 donor, is a familiar name to many Americans. Mike Bloomberg, Former Mayor of New York and billionaire entrepreneur behind the news outlet Bloomberg Inc., has been a staunch financial supporter of Biden. Back in 2020, Bloomberg made a hefty donation of $100 million to President Biden’s campaign in the state of Florida using his own money. A member of his staff explained the substantial donation by saying, “Mike Bloomberg is committed to helping defeat Trump, and that is going to happen in the battleground states.” While, similarly, there is some worry about the potential influence an individual like Bloomberg can have on President Biden’s policies given his sizable financial support, this unease has come at a less rapid rate than that of Adelson due to the latter’s ardent and blatant support of pro-Israel candidates and policies.

For the current 2024 electoral cycle, data is still of course being collected and processed but OpenSecrets has released some preliminary campaign funding information, as of this July. Former President Trump’s largest campaign donor has been Timothy Mellon, heir to the Mellon family fortune started by Thomas Mellon, an Irish immigrant turned real estate mogul. Mellon has a history of donating to conservative Republican party efforts, and in 2021, donated over $53 million to Texas Governor Greg Abbott’s wall along the Mexican border. President Biden’s biggest donor this cycle on the other hand has been Future Forward USA Action, a PAC that focuses on issues like the economy, healthcare, and protecting American democracy.

As the November U.S. presidential election approaches, the massive influence of money and big donors is at the forefront of many observers’ minds, especially in light of the unprecedented levels of dark money spending – as recently witnessed in the Democratic primary election for New York’s 16th Congressional District. For defenders of American democracy, transparency, and government accountability, the immense influx of money from a select number of high-end donors is alarming because it raises the question of whether elected officials answer more to the desires of these individuals over the constituents that they are supposed to represent. So long as this problem persists, we should continue to critically assess the detrimental impact of these large donations on political candidates, policies, and the overall functionality of our democracy.

Far-Right Makes Gains During the First Round of Parliamentary Elections in France

Far-Right Makes Gains During the First Round of Parliamentary Elections in France

Written By Cameron Reynolds

France’s far-right National Rally party (RN) rose victorious in the first round of the country’s parliamentary elections. According to the Ministry of Interior, the RN and its allies obtained roughly 33 percent of the vote for France’s lower house of parliament while the opposing left-wing New Popular Front (NFP) coalition achieved roughly 28 percent. NFP ally and French President Emmanuel Macron of the centrist Ensemble Alliance received 20 percent. Of the 577 seats in the National Assembly, 78 were won outright by candidates who received over 50 percent of the vote in their respective districts, with 38 of those candidates being members of the RN – including former party President Marine Le Pen. The proceeding political deal-making made between the rival parties will decide the final results prior to the upcoming run-off. If no candidate achieves 50 percent in the first round, the top two contenders will then move on to the second round, as well as candidates with at least 12.5% of the votes. The winner of the run-off will then be decided by the candidate with the most votes.

During the first round of the elections this past Sunday, voter turnout reached nearly 60 percent, trampling the 39.42 percent turnout just two years prior. The high turnout indicates that the country is heading for a record number of three-way run-offs. The RN has historically had more success in three-way run-offs than two-way contests. The latest developments occur after years of moderates on both sides of the aisle cooperating to uphold the “republican front,” an attempt to block the RN from power. The stability of that organized effort is now in question. Le Pen has conveyed her party’s mission to achieve an outright majority of 289 seats in the National Assembly, and the RN is now closer to that goal than ever.

The recent vote comes three years earlier than required and just a few weeks following French President Macron’s Renaissance Party’s significant loss to the RN in European parliamentary elections. Macron’s decision to conduct a snap election is France’s first in almost 30 years, taking the nation and its allies by surprise. The president has vowed to carry out the remainder of his presidential term until 2027. Macron now battles the potential of “cohabitation,” the appointment of an opposition party member as prime minister, which could result in a challenging partnership for a final term as president. The French government is historically inefficient in passing laws when the president and parliamentary majority are of the opposing parties. The president is responsible for creating foreign, European, and defense policy, while the parliamentary majority constructs domestic policy. Yet, these policy processes can overlap, leading to a potential constitutional crisis. The boundary between domestic and foreign policy can be unclear in certain situations. For instance, President Bardella of the National Front Party is firmly against deploying troops to Ukraine, an idea proposed by Macron, and also ruled out permitting Kyiv to use French weaponry to strike entities inside Russia. Thus, in this possible situation, it is uncertain whose policy stance would triumph. Financial implications may also arise following the RN surge. The RN has made significant spending commitments, as the far-right party has pledged to adjust Macron’s pension reforms and cut taxes on fuel, gas, and electricity.

Former French Prime Minister Eduardo Philippe stated that “no votes should be cast for National Rally candidates, but also for France unbowed candidates, with whom we differ on fundamental principles.” Le Pen has attempted to reform her party’s public image, which has for years been accused of racism and antisemitism. One of the tools that the RN has used to try and counter this is an attempt to incite voter aggression against Macron, sparked from the growing worries regarding immigration and the rising cost of living. Following the release of election results this past weekend, anti-far right protests erupted in Paris and Lyon, as roughly 5,500 people assembled in Paris’ Place de la Republique to express their resistance to the RN.

Europe as a whole has experienced a recent resurgence of the far-right. The usual allying of political parties to contain the far-right in European politics is lacking effectiveness. The presence and strength of nationalist and populist parties is expanding across Europe. An anti-Muslim group in the Netherlands under Geert Wilders have secured a deal to create the most right-wing government in Dutch history. Additionally, in 2022, Italy elected Giorgia Meloni, a right-wing politician and ultra-nationalist, whose party possessed neo-fascist roots, to be the head of state. Finland, Croatia, and the Czech Republic also have hard-right parties in their governments. There is an array of economic, cultural, social, and political proponents of the resurgence, and the growing support for the populist and nationalist parties is even represented in the European Union (EU). Recently, the right-wing Alternative for Germany (AfD) received the second-most votes in the June 2024 EU elections. The center-right European People’s Party (EPP), the center-left Socialist and Democrats (S&D), and the Liberal Renew groups are the most prominent entities in the parliament.

The recent success of the far-right has diminished the presence of the Renew, the party of President Macron. In the past, the EPP and S&D have connected and negotiated to pass substantial legislation, often supported by the Renew. However, recently the EPP has aligned more with the far-right European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR), altering the dynamic and polarization of the EU. The ECR and the Identity and Democracy (ID) group, who host Le Pen and the RN, have seen an increase in parliamentary presence. The far-right’s influence on policy has been evident, especially when it comes to the issue of immigration. These groups have used people’s concerns over the cost of living and quality of health to drive forward their anti-immigration policies, framing it as a national security threat and hindering many immigrants from reaching the EU, despite coming from nations with frightening human rights records. Representation for individuals of color is in jeopardy as well. According to the European Network Against Racism (ENAR), only 3 percent of the European parliament is composed of these members. Thus, continued political gains for far-right groups could be consequential for underrepresented demographics in society.

Taliban Participates in United Nations-Led Talks on Afghanistan Held in Qatar

Taliban Participates in United Nations-Led Talks on Afghanistan Held in Qatar

Written By Sheyanne Barr

Several years into the Taliban’s takeover of the government functions of Afghanistan, the effects of the regime’s oppressive rule continue to wreak havoc on the lives of everyday citizens. The human rights violations committed by the Taliban are many, and women have been reduced to second-class citizens. They have been prevented from exercising basic human rights such as freedom of movement, assembly, work, and education. These bans have also been expanded to ensure that women do not hold positions of power by barring them from NGOs and positions of public office. The United Nations has labeled the situation as “gender apartheid.” This label is, by all accounts from human rights groups, accurate. Women have been barred from an education past 6th grade and nearly all career opportunities, and the Taliban continues to chip away at what little women are still able to do. These bans have undermined many important sectors and have led to increased levels of poverty, decreased aid, and slowed economic growth. The few women who have managed to retain their jobs are deemed essential, such as healthcare workers, but even then, these women face extreme hardships as they attempt to carry out their work.

The Taliban have also targeted journalists, activists, and human rights defenders since their government takeover. After the culling, expulsion, and execution of many former government and security forces personnel, the most vocal voices of dissent have been silenced, and oppression has reigned in the country. The Taliban knows all too well that this consolidation of power has come at the cost of many lives and opportunities, a situation which it will undoubtedly be seeking to downplay during the talks in Qatar. With the aid that once supported large swaths of the Afghan population cut off and the agricultural sector still adjusting to the sudden shift from opium, there is a desperate need for support from outside sources.

Pakistan’s recent moves to force the movement of millions of war-time Afghan refugees back to the Taliban-controlled country has also contributed to the mounting pressure to come to the table for these latest talks. The return of this many migrants to a country that has changed so dramatically will bring increased political strain that will drive civil unrest and economic instability if not carefully handled. This development, combined with the recent female-led public demonstrations, has put the Taliban in an awkward position. Without aid, the authority of the current regime could be at risk. With it, the Taliban’s social control will be limited. The questions are where aid will come from, and if it will be willing to accept the terms that could accompany any type of support.

The economic strain caused by a shift from a wartime economy to a peacetime one was a known challenge that the Taliban would have to work hard to overcome. However, after having barred 20% of the workforce from participation, uprooting the livelihood of much of the country’s farmers, and the impending flood of people who will need social support to re-integrate into the reformed Afghan society, the Taliban has found itself between a rock and a hard place. These stress factors are likely the driving forces behind its participation in this latest round of talks in Qatar, which are unlikely to go anywhere if the regime remains unyielding on its present gender apartheid system. Any social change regarding women’s rights in Afghanistan does not appear to be likely at this point, as Taliban spokesmen have stuck to their guns, only saying that women’s rights would be protected based on Sharia Law. Despite their central role and importance in the discussion, the Taliban have also refrained from inviting women to join the Qatar talks.

The conclusion of these talks does not appear to have made an immediate difference in Afghanistan’s – and, by extension, the Taliban’s – standing among the nations of the world. As one UN envoy put it, the discussions were “a good starting point.” However, they may have marked the beginning of a very long dialogue that could well end with progress being made to improve equity in the country, but making this progress happen will require the discussion to span both the economic desires of the Taliban and the bleak civil rights situation created by its return to power back in 2021. The United States has held $7 billion of Afghanistan’s central bank’s reserves frozen since the withdrawal of American troops and the subsequent fall of Kabul. This money has been a major piece of leverage during diplomatic discussions since the Taliban’s takeover, and now it might once again come into play. Between outside pressures, the frozen assets, and the stimulus that UN aid would bring to the country, the opening of this dialogue is the best chance that the global community has had since the U.S. withdrawal to try and promote improvements in the quality of life for the average Afghan citizen.