By Nilan Kathir ’25
On January 21, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, seen as Former President Donald Trump P’00’s closest competitor for the Republican Party’s presidential candidate, dropped out of the 2024 election. Rather, he “suspended” his campaign, endorsing Trump instead.
A surplus of campaign controversies have emerged in recent years, such as New York Mayor Eric Adams’s use of straw donors and Missouri House Speaker Dean Plocher’s falsification of expense reports, marking a clear need for substantive change. Likewise, an often overlooked form of candidates exploiting voter-sourced funds is through the suspension of their campaigns.
The use of the word “suspension” rather than “termination” or “ending” has been seen in the campaigns of many presidential candidates, including those of Vivek Ramaswamy and Senator Elizabeth Warren. Candidates use this phrase for a myriad of reasons, most importantly the ability to resume the campaign should the political climate change.
“Suspension” allows candidates to pay back campaign-related debts while simultaneously receiving donations discreetly. More notably, however, suspending one’s campaign enables the candidate to use their funds as they see fit, often to fund political action committees (PACs) and to fellow presidential candidates.
This practice is a clear violation of the trust the American people have placed in the electoral system. When a campaign is suspended, the citizen expects that the candidate is inactive — both in raising funds and in spending them.
Furthermore, the common practice of “former” candidates giving donations to candidates that are still running means that their funds, sourced from their supporters, are not going to the cause their donors chose, which was to represent the original candidate, not some other one. Voters invest in the democratic process and donate to candidates, hoping to see their values represented as a form of public confidence. This act of faith is violated when candidates with “suspended” campaigns send their money to another candidate.
After a candidate suspends their campaign, the media largely refrains from reporting on them or tracking their expenditures. Because of this lack of coverage by the media, people are unable to adequately track how the money they donated is being used, decreasing transparency between the voters and those they are voting for. Not only do they not have a say in how those they donate to utilize the money, but they also have no idea where it is going. For these reasons, candidates should not be able to suspend or drop out of elections until their campaign funds are fully exhausted.
Of course, there are dissidents to restricting candidate suspensions. For instance, this rule would cause unnecessary expenditures of the voters’ funds. Moreover, candidates sometimes use the funds saved from suspended campaigns to fund future endeavors. Implementing this rule will not impede on this and will simply force candidates to create a separate fund if they hope to use the money for future elections.
Alternatively, candidates can donate their funds before suspending the campaign. This way, transparency of how candidates spend their funds post-suspension is ensured. Should concerning behaviors arise with such spending, the media would instantly flicker with headlines about the latest candidate donating to someone else or to a Super PAC.
Through this rule, candidates would finally fulfill their political commitment and responsibility to voters. Rather than needing to get stuck in minuscule funding details and surviving with the hope of a short-term gain, candidates would now strategize for the long term. By ensuring that all candidates will remain on the ballot, voters will be able to choose who they want to vote for, instead of being forced to choose the “next best option.” This would not only strengthen the platform on which they run but also ensure that whoever the people elect has legitimate solutions and policies for the betterment of the United States.
