Our poll of March 28 asked panelists who they thought might “donate” to Donald Trump's campaign by buying shares in Truth Social, his publicly traded social media platform. At the time, Trump’s stake in the company was valued at $5bb.

Perhaps predictably, Democrats and Republicans disagreed on the danger of foreign governments "donating" in this way, but two commentors gave food for thought on the larger picture of campaign finance.

One wrote “Anyone who thinks people are going to spend $5 billion to get Trump elected are just (not smart).”

But, it is not the case that $5bb spent on Truth Social shares would automatically equate to $5bb for Trump. The valuation of the company is not determined by how much people paid in aggregate to buy shares, but by the relative number of buyers and sellers. If there are relatively few sellers, then it takes relatively few buyers to boost the value, and vice versa. 

This reminds one that foreign actors are not just able to buy the shares, but may sell or short them if they oppose Trump. Surely selling the stock is just as nefarious, or benign, depending on your point of view, as buying them when it come to foreign money in our elections.

A second commentor wrote out “Don't forget Sam Bankman-Fried, the second largest donor for the 2022 election bankrupted his company by stealing investors’ money to donate $50 million to/through (democratic PAC) Act Blue.”

SBF didn't bankrupt his company by making political donations,he did it by allowing a competitor to create a run on his primary source of collateral, but this comment, and the first, raise the question: Where should we draw the line when it comes to moneys that may influence a campaign?

Our suggestion is don’t try to draw it at camapign donations, but at campaign spending, which is easier to identify and regulate.

The UK already incorporates this model. In the year prior to a general election no party is permitted to spend more than $55m on a campaign.Compare that to the US, where in 2020 $14 billion was spent on elections.

Americans don't agree on much, but they do agree there should be caps on campaign spending, with 50% of Republicans and Democrats in favor of a cap at least 50% lower than 2020 spending, and only 14% overall in favor of no cap.

Perhaps we are naive, but we remain hopeful campaign spending limits will come to pass in the US. As someone (not Winston Churchill), once said "Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing…after they have exhausted all other possibilities."