This Halloween, what’s so scary about money in politics?

Election 2026 will be yet another “most expensive ever.” Total midterm ad spending has already surpassed $10 billion, and it is expected to exceed $11 billion by November. Ghastly!There’s no end to the doom and gloom about it. The Washington Post and the Guardian are shrieking about “dark money,” focusing primarily on Republicans (surprise, surprise). Suggesting “public outrage over corruption,” the left-wing Brennan Center for Justice is setting its sights on Elon Musk’s support for Republicans, totaling nearly $400 million. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) certainly agrees, claiming billionaires like Musk are buying the 2026 election.Now, Democrats are fighting to limit 2028 presidential primary spending. What horror! It’s all just a tempest in a teapot. Political spending — one of America’s most basic forms of political expression – still pales in comparison to the $13.5 billion that Americans are expected to spend just on Halloween, putting countless Skittles and Reese’s Pieces into the mouths of waiting ghosts, ghouls, and Sydney Sweeney costumes this holiday. In other words, a single Halloween costs about $2 billion more than a two-year election cycle.The Halloween industry is booming for a very simple reason. America loves Halloween, and Americans love spending money on it. It is good, clean, slightly bloody fun that we’re all free to enjoy. Nearly three-quarters of U.S. consumers plan to celebrate Halloween, and no one is holding them back. Woke-scolds may have a problem with Sweeney, but no one is telling parents to stop buying Snickers bars or forcing Hershey to stop advertising.Halloween is a unique opportunity for Americans to express themselves in corny, quirky, scary ways. That is a good thing: Expression is speech and the more, the better!And yet, when the stakes are higher, when Americans decide to spend money on politics, that is suddenly a big, bad problem. Our democracy is a constant conversation — who to elect, how to vote, what the future should look like. It depends on Democrats, Republicans, independents, and werewolves — everyone — deciding which candidate to support or oppose over the course of months and years, with arguments and counter-arguments constantly flying around. From cable news to podcasts and Main Street, free speech and free association make democracy possible.But it takes money to express political views at scale. Coming up with ideas and sharing them in a city or across a state will never be free, and that’s fine.Democrats and their media allies only really complain about “money in politics” when it benefits Republicans. How many anti-speech leftists worry about James Talarico breaking the Senate’s third-quarter fundraising record and raising over $134 million overall? How many are concerned about George Soros “buying” the midterm elections with more than $100 million spent?Crickets from Sanders on Soros’ longtime mega-donating. Crickets when Kamala Harris outraised and outspent President Donald Trump in 2024, or courts mega-donors for a potential 2028 run today (frightening).The fearmongering misses a key point: No matter how much you spend in politics, it can’t turn a bad candidate into a good one. It can’t turn a dysfunctional campaign into a functional one. Despite Harris’ financial advantages, she failed to win a single battleground state in 2024. American voters rejected her ideas on their merits, no matter how many pro-Harris Facebook ads they scrolled through.What’s really scary is the insistence on silencing dissent, preventing Americans from raising and spending money to promote their own ideas — not just what the government considers acceptable. Limiting political spending is a direct assault on the Constitution, which guarantees everyone’s ability — left, right, and center — to freely speak, freely associate, and freely participate in a democracy that doesn’t exist without their participation.In the end, the marketplace of ideas is a meritocracy. If people happen to support Trump or oppose Musk, the most compelling idea come Election Day will win. No amount of money will convince a voter to vote for someone they don’t want to support, just like candy companies can’t force consumers to buy their sugary snacks. We choose to do it, just like we choose who to vote for and how we want to support them.The political graveyard is full of candidates who thought money would buy them success, only for the American people to make them losers. Hillary Clinton. Michael Bloomberg. Jeb!THE POLLS AREN’T BROKEN. THEY’RE BEING MADE UPThe list goes on. Each case study disproves the Left’s argument about money in politics. Campaign finance restrictions aren’t really about empowering the little man (or woman); they are really about not trusting voters who may disagree with the establishment class. If we can’t trust voters to make the right decision, we don’t have a democracy.Let the people decide. Let voters speak, associate, and pick the winners or losers for themselves. It’s as American as Halloween.Dan Backer is a veteran campaign counsel. He has served more than 100 candidates and political action committees and overseen more than $250 million in political spending over the past decade. He practices law as a member of Chalmers, Adams, Backer & Wallen LLC.