MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST:

This election, like the one before it and the one before that and the one before that, will be the most expensive election in U.S. history. OpenSecrets is a nonpartisan group that tracks election spending. It estimates the 2024 federal election cycle will cost nearly $16 billion. It was around 15 billion back in 2020. Well, Daniel Weiner is director of the Brennan Center for Justice's elections and government program. He tracks the influence of money in elections. And I talked to him about what role money has played in this presidential election. Hey there, Daniel.

DANIEL WEINER: Hey there. It's a pleasure to be with you.

KELLY: So go to that number I just cited - $16 billion spent in this federal election cycle. What pops into your head?

WEINER: What pops into my head is that's a lot of money, but I am most interested on where that money is coming from. There is a big difference between $16 billion coming from millions of Americans in small increments versus just a significant portion of it coming from a handful of billionaires. What we have seen is that the trend is towards more and more of that money coming from the very wealthiest donors.

KELLY: And tease out for me why. What has changed in this election cycle?

WEINER: A couple of things have changed. So the largest, overarching trend is that, since a decision called Citizens United in 2010 swept away a lot of limits on campaign fundraising and spending, more and more groups like super PACs, which can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money, have played a prominent role in U.S. elections. In the meantime, the laws that remained on the books, which were supposed to, for instance, keep those super PACs from collaborating with candidates, have gone largely unenforced.

So you have a situation now, for instance, with former President Trump's campaign, where he has actually outsourced quite a bit of that campaign to super PACs funded by folks like Elon Musk. Kamala Harris also has a lot of billionaire backers, although she is following a more traditional model, where, still, the organization taking the lead is her traditional campaign committee because that has had very successful fundraising on its own.

KELLY: To the question of what all this money buys - we've mentioned Donald Trump and Elon Musk. Trump says, if elected, he would name Musk to a new efficiency czar position. How unusual is that?

WEINER: Well, I think it's important to not overstate how unusual it is because you have to remember, we have a long tradition in this country of major donors getting things like ambassadorships...

KELLY: Right.

WEINER: ...Right? - which both parties have done. What is unusual is the potential for a donor to take a role that would have so much direct oversight over matters in which the donor has a direct financial interest. Remember, Musk is a major government contractor. His companies like SpaceX have billions of dollars of federal contracts.

KELLY: Talk to me about what you were seeing on the Democratic side. I'm remembering that, back when she was a senator, Kamala Harris was prone to speaking out against corporate cash and political action committees. She spoke out against so-called dark money, anonymous contributions. In this presidential campaign, she has not seemed that bothered about benefiting from outside money. What do you...

WEINER: Well...

KELLY: ...See when you look at that?

WEINER: I see that Kamala Harris and Donald Trump are fighting a very close election. And in the climate that we have, I don't think either side is going to leave anything on the field. More and more, on both sides, the super PACs supporting them are relying on donations from dark-money groups that do not disclose their donors - that are basically funneled through the super PAC. What's fascinating...

KELLY: But you don't see hypocrisy there in a political candidate who was happy to call out dark money until it was directly benefiting her presidential campaign?

WEINER: I would say that I think that there is going to be a willingness to use any legal lever possible across the board. I just don't think it's realistic, until you change the rules, that either side is going to unilaterally disarm.

KELLY: Can you ever get money out of politics? Or when I talk to you four years from now, are we likely to be saying once again, this has just been the most expensive election in U.S. history?

WEINER: Well, and interestingly, this may not be the most expensive election in U.S. history - this election we thought was going to break all records and now may be on track to actually clock in about where 2020 clocked in. But then you have to factor in inflation. So here's what I want to say. I think getting money out of politics is the wrong question. The question is, where does the money come from?

So what I would like to see - and although the Supreme Court has made this harder, it is not impossible - I would like to see an election where there are more small donations and where, you know, most of the money - at least most of the big money - is transparent. In the medium term, that is what I think we could achieve. And, you know, I do think it's significant that, however Kamala Harris is raising money now, she has made those sorts of reforms a central promise of her campaign.

KELLY: Daniel Weiner, director of the Brennan Center for Justice's Elections and Government Program. Thanks so much.

WEINER: It was a pleasure. Thank you.

(SOUNDBITE OF ELMIENE SONG, "MARKING MY TIME (BADBADNOTGOOD EDIT)") Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.