Third party by a different name?

Last week’s Congressional deal to stave off a government shutdown provoked most of its ire from Democrats for the removal of a controversial derivatives regulation in the Dodd-Frank bill. But tucked away, in page 1,599 of the 1,603 bill, was an equally contentious provision quietly lifting existing contribution limits to political parties nearly tenfold. And it amounts to nothing less than the major parties’ biggest attempt yet to counter the meteoric rise in influence of outside spending groups. 

The inclusion of the provision, reportedly concocted by Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and opposed by many Democrats wary of even more money in politics, is a reflection of the bipartisan, Beltway anxieties over the tectonic shifts in campaign finance that favor SuperPACs at the expense of political parties. 

{mosads}And it reveals that the structural conditions that have allowed major parties to stifle the rise of a third party in America for decades is finally weakening. 

Third parties, despite being the subject of copious excitement—followed by failed projects—in nearly every presidential election year, are bound to emerge as a topic yet again in the 2016 race as intraparty rifts are exposed. After all, polling consistently shows a vast swath of the electorate is deeply dissatisfied with both major parties and expresses a preference for a hypothetical third party. 

But the third party myth is exactly that because it ignores the many structural impediments to the rise of any such party, ranging from the statistical tendency for pluralist systems like ours to favor the top two choices (see Duverger’s Law), to the difficulty of securing ballot access in most states, to having to contend against the superior brand-awareness and local organization of both major parties. 

In 2010, however, Citizens United and subsequent campaign finance developments empowered individual donors and groups at the expense of political parties. And while most foresaw the rise in spending, few could anticipate the numerous ways in which the ecosystem of SuperPACs, non-profits, think tanks and other outside spending groups could form a unique threat to the very parties themselves. 

In both form and function, individual megadonors are proving capable of dissolving the historical barriers to the rise of a third party:

·         Money – The share of outside spending in midterms nearly doubled since 2010 and is rising precipitously. After all, with no contribution limits and lax disclosure rules, megadonors can tap deep pockets (their own) and scale faster than political parties can.

·         Replicating Party Functions – The Koch brothers’ network has reportedly approached the Republican Party itself in its capacity to build a voter database and target voters, recruit a grassroots volunteer base that will get out the vote, and even poll and message-test. These were once functions coordinated and run out of parties, and the Koch network won’t be the last to take them in-house.

·         Megadonors as Brands – Megadonors on both the left and right are slowly acquiring the sort of public profiles that could soon serve as a signaling mechanism for the electorate. From the “libertarian” brand of the Koch Brothers to Tom Steyer’s focus on climate change, it’s conceivable that megadonor endorsements may soon serve to help voters decide whom to vote for (or avoid).

·         Local Infrastructure – The bread and butter of party-building is a local base of volunteers and candidates that form the infrastructure required to sustain a political effort for the long haul. SuperPACs, once designed for federal candidates, are increasingly looking to local and state races to spend money and doing more to generate candidate loyalty.

·         Built to Last – Some groups on the right, like Americans for Prosperity, are looking past the cycle ahead and organizing committed volunteers in dozens of states around issues—a party platform, if you will. Beyond having a formidable turnout program come Election Day, the groups are acquiring a base independent from either party’s electoral fortunes and raising money year-round—a sign that they are here to stay.

None of this is to say that megadonors will even attempt to launch a formal third party. But as outside spending groups grow into networks that walk and talk like privatized political parties, megadonors’ growing leverage portends instability in American politics. In the coming years, major parties will struggle to appease megadonors’ demands, alternately establishment and populist in flavor, and can be expected to vacillate between policies and postures on a far more accelerated scale.

A nascent version of this instability can already be observed on the right. Indeed, there’s a reason that Speaker Boehner—tugged and pulled by factions in both directions—proposed last week’s change to strengthen traditional parties. With no unifying national leader for their party, as President Obama has been for the Democrats, only the Republicans have had to fully reckon with this Wild West era of campaign finance, their growing pains spilled onto the national stage.

But it is not a trend that the Democrats will be immune to either, as last week’s revolt against Wall Street banks on the Senate floor last week may foretell. 

The two-party system will still endure, but it is weaker than it has been in decades. Politics in America is up for grabs.

Yeres is a research associate at Global Strategy Group, a political research and strategy firm.