In the 2022 midterms, the 100 largest donors collectively spent 60 percent more than every small donor in the United States combined, according to a Brennan Center analysis of publicly available data. (Small donors are those who give $200 or less.)
The wealthy have always wielded disproportionate power over American government. In 1895, GOP strategist Mark Hanna famously said, “There are only two important things in politics. The first is money, and I can’t remember the second.” But money’s outsized influence has ebbed and flowed over U.S. history.

We are now living through another period in which moneyed interests dominate our politics to a dangerous degree. Wealthy donors serve as gatekeepers to public office. Billionaires alone — the United States has fewer than 700 of them — provided 15 percent of the funding for the most recent federal elections. Money doesn’t always buy election results, but it emphatically affects policy. Welcome to the second gilded age of money in politics.

How did it get so bad? Blame the Supreme Court, which has issued rulings blocking or undermining needed rules. Most recently, Citizens United has been the driving force. Small donors collectively outspent the 100 largest donors by a margin of more than three to one during the 2010 midterms. Citizens United was decided that year. The ruling did not say “corporations are people,” as it has been caricatured. It did, however, open the way to unlimited donations to super PACs.

Super PACs, which are barred from formally coordinating with candidates but nevertheless function as surrogates, spent just $63 million in the 2010 midterms. That number rose to $345 million in 2014, $822 million in 2018, and $1.3 billion in 2022. The infamous Supreme Court decision also generated a surge in dark money that continues to gather pace.

In this topsy-turvy system, incumbents fear a flood of allegedly independent money for a primary opponent. That’s one reason Citizens United has had such a calamitous impact on policy. Before 2010, key Republican leaders backed climate change legislation. After the ruling and the effective deregulation of campaign money, the GOP became the only conservative party in any major democracy to effectively deny the existence of the problem. Some worry that passionate small donors lead to polarization, but in fact wealthy ideologues distort policy even more.

Citizens United isn’t going away anytime soon. But there are solutions to this problem. States and cities are leading the way, creating innovative campaign finance programs to amplify the voices of small donors rather than attempting to limit the spending of megadonors. It’s a conceptual breakthrough in campaign finance.

New York City matches small-dollar donations to competitive candidates, and New York State has recently built its own matching program. Connecticut issues grants to candidates who reach a certain threshold of small contributors. Seattle provides its citizens with vouchers that can be directed toward a chosen candidate for office. The District of Columbia is trying a hybrid approach, deploying both a grant system and a matching program.

The latent power of small donors, which is starting to take flight in these pockets, can help swing the money-in-politics pendulum back to a healthier position. Politicians have already taken notice. Ohio Senator-elect J.D. Vance wrote an op-ed last week warning his fellow Republicans that they should improve their fundraising with small donors rather than rely so heavily on super PACs.
Vance is an unexpected messenger on this issue — billionaire investor Peter Thiel almost single-handedly catapulted Vance into the general election. They say hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue. Let’s hope so.


Wins for Voting Rights
Americans in several states had the chance to weigh in on voting access proposals on the ballot this year. For the most part, the results were positive. Arizonans, for example, rejected two strict voter ID requirements. On the other side, Nebraska voters approved a ballot proposal that could curtail voting access. But overall, Jasleen Singh and Sara Carter write, “the results show that when voter access is on the ballot, Americans choose to protect it more often than not.” READ MORE

Voters Amend State Constitutions to Lock In New Rights
State constitutions are much easier to amend than the federal constitution, and in the midterms, voters used this flexibility to codify rights. Newly passed amendments to state constitutions cover, among other things, voting rights, reproductive freedom, and workers’ rights. “Going forward, look for constitutional amendments to continue to be an important vehicle for establishing state constitutional rights,” Amanda Powers writes. READ MORE

More Evidence SCOTUS Needs a Code of Conduct
Allegations that Justice Samuel Alito was responsible for leaking a milestone decision have made a big splash. But the way the alleged leak came about deserves more attention: a secret influence campaign by anti-abortion activists targeting conservative Supreme Court justices. “The story draws into sharp focus the Court’s lackluster approach to ethics and shows why both Congress and the Supreme Court itself must act to shore up the Court’s legitimacy,” Alicia Bannon writes. READ MORE

Activists Under Law Enforcement’s Microscope
Police departments are increasingly using social media for their investigations and information collection, but they rarely detail what public data is gathered or monitored, or how. The recent trial of a climate activist highlights the risks of unchecked online surveillance on the rights to free speech and privacy. “Social media has power for organizers, but it also offers law enforcement the power to intimidate,” Gabriella Sanchez and Rachel Levinson-Waldman write. READ MORE

FBI Falls Short on Domestic Terror Threats
A new Senate report criticizes the FBI’s woefully inadequate efforts to fight white supremacist violence. Moreover, it notes that the bureau’s refusal to internally assess or provide clear data on its domestic terrorism program has hindered the government’s ability to effectively combat those threats. “A comprehensive review of the FBI’s post-9/11 counterterrorism programs, which have been fraught with error and abuse, is long overdue,” Michael German writes. READ MORE


Coming Up

VIRTUAL EVENT: A Close Look at the ‘Independent State Legislature Theory’
Wednesday, November 30, 6–7:45 p.m. ET

Join this live panel for a discussion of the so-called “independent state legislature theory,” which is front and center in Moore v. Harper, one of this Supreme Court term’s most watched cases. Prominent scholars and practitioners will take on the constitutional underpinnings of the independent state legislature theory, the historical origins of the relevant constitutional clauses, and the challenges that a Supreme Court decision endorsing this theory would present for our democracy. RSVP TODAY

Produced in partnership with the New York City Bar Association. This event is free for all non-lawyers and $15 for lawyers who are not members of the New York City Bar Association.
Want to keep up with Brennan Center Live events? Subscribe to the events newsletter.

News

Michael Li on the effects of redistricting on New York’s congressional races // TIME
[link removed]

Michael Waldman on the strong defenses against disruptions on Election Day // WASHINGTON POST
[link removed]

Daniel Weiner on the failure of two gambling-related ballot initiatives in California // NBC
[link removed]

Feedback on this newsletter? Email us at [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]







[link removed]

Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law

120 Broadway, Suite 1750 New York, NY 10271

646-292-8310

tel:646-292-8310

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Support Brennan Center

[link removed]

Want to change how you receive these emails or unsubscribe? Click here

[link removed]

to update your preferences.

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]