Campaign Finance: How 1% of Americans Bought 78% of Democracy

How Did Money Take Over American Politics?

In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v. FEC that corporations and unions could spend unlimited money on elections. In the years since, political spending has exploded — and the connection between donor money and policy outcomes has become impossible to deny.

Before Citizens United, federal law limited how much corporations and unions could spend on elections. The ruling eliminated those limits, creating a new category of political organization — the Super PAC — that can raise and spend unlimited amounts as long as it doesn't "coordinate" with a candidate's campaign. In practice, the no-coordination rule is a legal fiction: Super PACs are routinely run by former staffers of the candidates they support, share consultants and vendors, and use publicly available campaign messaging to align their efforts.

The result has been an arms race. The 2020 election cycle cost $14.4 billion — more than double the cost of the 2012 cycle, the first after Citizens United. The average winning House candidate now spends $2.8 million. The average winning Senate candidate spends $14.5 million. These numbers ensure that only candidates who can attract wealthy donors — or who are wealthy themselves — can compete.

Dark money — political spending by organizations that do not disclose their donors — has surged alongside Super PACs. Through 501(c)(4) "social welfare" organizations, corporations and billionaires can spend millions on political advertising without the public ever knowing who paid for it. Over $1 billion in dark money flowed into the 2020 election cycle.

Perhaps most corrosive is the fundraising treadmill. Members of Congress spend an estimated 30-70% of their working hours making fundraising calls. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has recommended that new members spend four hours per day on "call time" — dialing donors from a dedicated call center across the street from the Capitol. The people elected to write laws spend more time asking for money than doing their jobs. This is not a dysfunction of the system — it is the system working as designed for those who fund it.

Does Money Actually Influence Policy?

Yes. A landmark 2014 study by Princeton professors Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page analyzed 1,779 policy issues and found that economic elites and organized business groups have substantial independent influence on policy — while average citizens have "near-zero" influence.

The Gilens and Page study is the most comprehensive empirical analysis of who actually shapes American policy. Their finding was blunt: "When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy." In other words, what ordinary citizens want has virtually no effect on what Congress does.

The mechanism is straightforward. Consider pharmaceutical lobbying: the drug industry spent $374 million on lobbying in 2022 — more than any other industry. For decades, Congress prohibited Medicare from negotiating drug prices, a policy that cost Americans an estimated $100 billion per year in inflated costs. The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 finally allowed negotiation on 10 drugs — a step forward, but one that covers a tiny fraction of the market, precisely because the industry's political spending ensured the law was as narrow as possible.

Or consider financial deregulation. The banking industry spent $2.7 billion on lobbying between 1999 and 2008, successfully pushing for the repeal of Glass-Steagall and the deregulation of derivatives trading. The result was the 2008 financial crisis, which destroyed $13 trillion in household wealth and cost the federal government $700 billion in bailouts. The banks that lobbied for deregulation received the bailouts. The families who lost their homes did not. See the corporate power issue page for the full analysis.

Sources: OpenSecrets, Gilens & Page (2014), Congressional Research Service. See the full campaign finance issue page for complete sourcing.

How Does the Common Good Campaign Finance Plan Work?

The Common Good plan replaces the current donor-driven system with public financing, bans the structures that enable corruption, and creates real transparency so voters know exactly who is trying to influence their elections.

The plan is built on eight core provisions, each targeting a specific mechanism through which money corrupts democratic representation. Together, they create an electoral system where candidates are funded by — and accountable to — the people they represent.

• Public Financing of Elections: Establish a 6:1 small-dollar matching system for federal elections. Every dollar from a small donor (under $200) is matched with six public dollars. Candidates who opt in can run competitive campaigns without courting billionaires. New York City's matching program has operated successfully since 1988.
• Ban Super PACs: Eliminate Super PACs through a constitutional amendment establishing that political spending is not protected speech and that corporations are not people for purposes of campaign finance law. Until an amendment passes, impose strict anti-coordination rules with real enforcement.
• Require Dark Money Disclosure: All organizations spending more than $10,000 on political advertising must disclose every donor who contributed more than $200. No exceptions for 501(c)(4) organizations. Disclosure must be real-time and publicly searchable.
• Ban Corporate PAC Contributions: Prohibit corporations from making political contributions through PACs or any other vehicle. Individual employees retain their right to donate personally, but the corporation itself — and its treasury — is out of the political process entirely.
• Real-Time Donor Transparency: All campaign contributions above $200 must be disclosed within 48 hours in a publicly searchable database. Voters have a right to know who is funding candidates before they vote, not months after the election.
• Small-Dollar Matching (6:1): For every $1 a candidate raises from a small donor (under $200), the federal government matches with $6. A $50 contribution becomes $350. This makes small donors as powerful as large ones and incentivizes candidates to build broad support instead of courting a handful of wealthy backers.
• Revolving Door Ban (10-Year Cooling Off): Former members of Congress and senior executive branch officials are banned from lobbying for 10 years after leaving office. Former lobbyists are banned from taking government positions regulating their former clients for 10 years. End the pipeline between writing regulations and profiting from them.
• Ban Congressional Stock Trading: Members of Congress and their immediate families must place all financial assets in blind trusts for the duration of their service. No more trading on insider legislative knowledge. The STOCK Act's disclosure requirements have proven insufficient — an outright ban is necessary.

For the complete plan with legislative detail, cost projections, and sourcing, see the full campaign finance issue page.

How Does US Campaign Finance Compare to Other Democracies?

The United States is the only major democracy that allows unlimited political spending by corporations and wealthy individuals. Every other wealthy democracy imposes spending limits, provides public financing, or both — and their elections cost a fraction of what ours do.

The contrast is stark. In the United Kingdom, a general election campaign lasts six weeks and total spending is capped by law. In France, the official campaign period is two weeks, corporate donations are banned, and candidates receive public reimbursement based on their vote share. In Canada, corporate and union donations to parties and candidates have been banned since 2006. In every case, elections function — candidates campaign, voters choose, governments form — at a fraction of the cost and without the corruption that unlimited money introduces.

The American system is not an inevitability. It is a choice — and every other wealthy democracy has chosen differently. For a detailed comparison of party positions on campaign finance, see the Compare Parties page.

What Is Dark Money and Where Does It Come From?

Dark money is political spending by organizations that are not required to disclose their donors. Over $1 billion in dark money flowed into the 2020 federal elections. Voters have no way to know who paid for the ads they see.

The primary vehicle for dark money is the 501(c)(4) organization. Under IRS rules, these "social welfare" organizations can engage in political activity — including running political ads — as long as politics is not their "primary purpose." Because they are classified as nonprofits rather than political committees, they are not required to disclose their donors. This loophole allows corporations, billionaires, and even foreign-linked entities to spend millions on American elections anonymously.

The flow of dark money has increased dramatically since Citizens United. In the 2006 midterm elections — before the ruling — dark money groups spent approximately $5.2 million. By 2018, that figure had risen to over $150 million. In the 2020 cycle, it exceeded $1 billion. Both parties benefit from dark money, but the system disproportionately advantages those with the most wealth to deploy — which is why dark money spending overwhelmingly supports policies that benefit corporations and the wealthy.

Who benefits? The industries that spend the most on dark money are the same ones that spend the most on lobbying: pharmaceuticals, fossil fuels, finance, and telecommunications. Dark money allows these industries to shape public opinion and elect friendly candidates without public accountability. When a voter sees an ad opposing drug price negotiation, they may not know it was funded by the pharmaceutical industry — it appears to come from a group with a patriotic-sounding name like "Americans for Prosperity" or "Citizens for a Strong Economy."

Why disclosure matters: transparency is the minimum condition for democratic accountability. If voters cannot know who is trying to influence their vote, they cannot evaluate the messenger's credibility or motives. The Common Good plan requires full, real-time disclosure of all political spending above $200 — no exceptions for 501(c)(4) organizations, no delays until after the election, and a publicly searchable database. See the voting rights page for additional transparency reforms.

What Are the Biggest Myths About Campaign Finance?

The beneficiaries of the current system have developed a set of arguments designed to make reform seem impossible, unconstitutional, or counterproductive. Here are the four most persistent myths — and what the evidence shows.

Campaign Finance Policy: Frequently Asked Questions

Click any question to expand the answer.

Have a question not answered here? Read the full campaign finance issue page or visit our site-wide FAQ.