Every morning at nine, former Representative David Jolly would walk into a windowless room two blocks from the Capitol, pick up a phone, and start dialing. The party officials who ran the call center had given him his daily quota: raise $18,000. Not for the month, not for the week, but by the end of that day. “Call time” dominated his schedule for 30 hours each week, leaving just two hours daily for the job voters had elected him to do. This is American democracy’s best-kept open secret. Before any voter casts a ballot, money has already decided who gets to run.

Just 12 megadonors contributed $1 of every $13 spent in federal politics between 2009 and 2020, a total of $3.4 billion from a group smaller than a basketball team’s roster. In 2024, timber heir Timothy Mellon alone gave $165 million to influence the presidential race, more money than many Senate campaigns spend entirely. This isn’t democracy as the founders envisioned. It’s a system where a tiny elite controls political funding while the average citizen has what Princeton researchers call a “near-zero” impact on public policy.

---

The problem begins with what political scientists have termed the “wealth primary,” an invisible contest where prospective politicians compete for donor support that determines their viability. The financial barriers are staggering. Competitive House races now require $1.5-2 million minimum, Senate races need $5-100 million depending on state size, and presidential campaigns demand billions. As OpenSecrets data shows, federal challengers who spend less than a million dollars have virtually no chance of winning.

Consider Alexandra Rojas, executive director of Justice Democrats, who documented how qualified candidates routinely abandon races before they begin. A Florida teacher with deep community support and a compelling policy platform calculated she’d need to raise $3,000 daily while working full-time just to compete. She withdrew before filing papers. Another prospective candidate, a veteran and small business owner in Ohio, was told by party officials he’d need $500,000 in the bank before they’d provide any support. He never entered the race.

Politicians who do run spend 4-6 hours daily dialing for dollars in party call centers, complete with donation leaderboards and scripts for different donor levels. The recommended schedule allocates just 2 hours of a 9-10 hour workday to actual legislation. This creates a vicious cycle where money determines viability, viable candidates attract more money, and the advantage compounds. Self-funding offers little escape, as only 12.5% of self-funded federal candidates win. The system demands not personal wealth but access to wealthy donor networks.

Beyond official campaigns lies an even more troubling architecture that emerged after the 2010 Citizens United decision. The Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling, based on First Amendment free speech grounds, didn’t just increase political spending but created an entirely new system operating parallel to official campaigns. Super PACs can raise and spend unlimited amounts while claiming independence from candidates, though enforcement of coordination rules is essentially nonexistent. Since Citizens United, the Federal Election Commission has initiated only a handful of coordination investigations, with none resulting in meaningful penalties despite obvious violations.

Dark money has exploded from under $5 million in 2006 to a record $1.9 billion in 2024, flowing through a complex network of 501(c)(4) “social welfare” organizations that don’t have to disclose their donors. These groups can accept unlimited contributions from anyone and then funnel that money to Super PACs, creating apparent disclosure while obscuring the original source. Elon Musk spent $132 million through his America PAC. Meanwhile, complex networks like the Koch-aligned Americans for Prosperity operate dozens of groups under different names, making it nearly impossible to track the true flow of influence.

The foreign money risk adds another concerning dimension. The FEC relies on campaigns to self-certify donors’ citizenship status, what its own Inspector General called a “national security risk.” While ActBlue’s fraud detection systems flagged 22 potentially problematic donation patterns in 2024, the actual foreign interference extent remains unclear due to limited enforcement resources. A pro-Trump Super PAC that solicited $2 million from a fictitious Chinese businessman received just a $25,000 fine six years later.

The real-world impact on policy has been documented definitively. Princeton’s Martin Gilens and Northwestern’s Benjamin Page analyzed 1,779 policy issues over two decades, finding that economic elites have substantial independent impact on U.S. government policy, while average citizens have “only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact.” When oligarch preferences diverge from public opinion, oligarchs generally prevail.

The pharmaceutical industry exemplifies this dynamic. While Medicare drug price negotiation enjoys broad public support, the industry successfully limited its scope through strategic donations. During the first six months of 2021, pharma companies gave $1.6 million to Congress. Representative Scott Peters received $63,900 and later co-sponsored bills limiting the program. The final legislation covered just 10 drugs initially, far below original proposals.

Fossil fuel companies invested $219 million in the 2024 elections, with 88% going to Republicans. Academic research published in PNAS found these companies strategically reward legislators with proven anti-environmental voting records. The industry receives approximately $20 billion in annual subsidies according to IMF estimates, an extraordinary return on their political investments.

The financial industry’s influence on banking regulations shows similar patterns. Wall Street spent $2.9 billion during the 2019-20 cycle. When the 2018 Dodd-Frank rollback vote approached, vulnerable Democratic senators became top recipients. All three who received the most, over $250,000 each, joined Republicans to weaken oversight.

Public opinion consistently opposes donor preferences yet rarely prevails. Sixty percent of Americans view climate change as a major threat, 82% support Medicare drug price negotiation, and 80% of both Republicans and Democrats say major donors have too much influence. Yet Congress hasn’t passed significant campaign finance reform since McCain-Feingold in 2002, which Citizens United largely negated.

America operates the world’s most expensive democracy, spending exponentially more than comparable nations. The 2024 election cycle exceeded $20 billion. The UK’s 2019 general election saw total spending of about £147 million. German federal elections typically cost under €100 million. Canada, which reformed its system in 2003, bans corporate donations entirely and limits individual contributions to CAD $1,700 per candidate.

Most democracies implemented these reforms decades ago. Norway’s public financing system, established in 1970, provides 74% of party funding. France’s 1988 reforms reimburse 50% of campaign expenses. These countries provide free TV advertising, impose strict spending limits, and restrict campaign periods to weeks rather than years.

Harvard’s Lawrence Lessig puts it starkly: “In the current election cycle, 158 families have given half the money to candidates. That’s a banana republic democracy, not an American democracy.”

The trajectory is unmistakable. Political spending has grown from $6.5 billion in 2016 to $14 billion in 2020 to over $20 billion in 2024. Dark money increased 380-fold since 2006. Individual megadonors now routinely contribute nine-figure sums dwarfing entire state party budgets.

This isn’t sustainable. When members of Congress spend more time fundraising than legislating, when policy outcomes correlate with donor preferences rather than public opinion, the system stops functioning in the public interest. The feedback loops intensify as more money leads to more influence, which protects the role of money, attracting even more spending.

Realistically, reform faces enormous obstacles. The Supreme Court’s narrow corruption definition, requiring explicit quid pro quo exchanges, ignores systemic influence. Constitutional constraints from Citizens United limit spending restrictions. The FEC remains structurally paralyzed. Those with power to change the system benefit from it. House incumbents enjoy a 91% reelection rate, which is bolstered by fundraising advantages.

Yet public awareness is growing. Eighty percent of Americans across party lines believe major donors have too much influence. Some cities and states are experimenting with public financing and democracy vouchers. Seattle’s democracy voucher program, giving residents $100 in campaign contribution coupons, has shown promise since 2017.

The fundamental truth is this. Money, not votes, now decides who appears on our ballots. The wealth primary eliminates candidates before voters ever get a choice. Dark money groups spend billions while hiding their donors. Super PACs owned by single billionaires outspend entire political parties. When a tiny elite can override the will of 330 million Americans through sheer financial force, democracy itself is a mirage.

We must get dark money and big money out of politics. Not because it favors one party or another, but because it destroys the basic premise of democracy, that the people, not the wealthy, should choose their representatives. Every other developed democracy has figured this out with spending limits, public financing, and real enforcement.

But waiting for federal reform is a fool’s errand. The federal government is captured, perhaps irreparably, by the very interests that benefit from this system. The real fight must happen in the states, where citizens still have power to act.

Here’s what states can do right now: pass ballot access laws that ban any candidate who accepts corporate money or PAC money from appearing on the ballot. They can still run as write-in candidates, preserving their constitutional rights, but they forfeit the privilege of automatic ballot access the moment they take that first corporate check. Right now, you can call your governor and demand this.

Removing the influence of money in politics is an incredibly important tool in fighting the authoritarian takeover of the United States. States control their own ballot access requirements and already impose numerous conditions, from signature requirements to filing fees. Maine and Arizona have proven state-level public financing works. Twenty states have passed resolutions calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. But resolutions aren’t enough. We need state laws with teeth.

Let candidates choose between corporate money or voter access. The clean-money candidates can dominate the ballots while corporate-funded opponents scramble to run write-in campaigns. Within one election cycle, the entire political arena would shift.

The federal system may be beyond repair, but your state isn’t. Until America breaks the stranglehold of the donor class on who can run, who can win, and what they can do once elected, we will continue to have a government of the money, by the money, and for the money. The data proves what we already know. The will of the people has been replaced by the will of the wealthy. The fight to reclaim democracy starts in your state, let’s get to work.

If you found this article worthwhile, check out my book

Conservatism: America’s Personality Disorder

https://a.co/d/dc0MDA5

References

Americans for Financial Reform. (2021, April 15). Wall Street money in 2019-20 election cycle hits highest level ever [Press release]. https://ourfinancialsecurity.org/2021/04/news-release-wall-street-money-in-2019-20-election-cycle-hits-highest-level-ever/

Brennan Center for Justice. (2022, November 18). Billionaires provided 15 percent of funding for the midterms. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/billionaires-provided-15-percent-funding-midterms

Brennan Center for Justice. (2024, November 21). Dark money hit a record high of $1.9 billion in 2024 federal races. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/dark-money-hit-record-high-19-billion-2024-federal-races

City of Seattle. (2017). Democracy voucher program: About the program. Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission. https://www.seattle.gov/democracyvoucher/about-the-program

Federal Election Commission. (2021, October 7). FEC fines pro-Trump super PAC for soliciting foreign nationals. FEC Record. https://www.fec.gov/updates/week-of-october4-8-2021/

Gilens, M., & Page, B. I. (2014). Testing theories of American politics: Elites, interest groups, and average citizens. Perspectives on Politics, 12(3), 564-581. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592714001595

HM Government. (2020). Costs of the 2019 UK Parliamentary general election. UK Cabinet Office. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/costs-of-the-2019-uk-parliamentary-general-election

Issue One. (2020, January 15). Outsized influence: 12 political megadonors are responsible for $1 of every $13 in federal elections since Citizens United. https://issueone.org/articles/outsized-influence-12-political-megadonors-are-responsible-for-1-of-every-13-in-federal-elections-since-citizens-united

Jolly, D. (2016, April 24). Are members of Congress becoming telemarketers? [Interview]. 60 Minutes. CBS News. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-are-members-of-congress-becoming-telemarketers/

KFF Health News. (2021, September 30). Pharma campaign cash delivered to key lawmakers with surgical precision. Kaiser Family Foundation. https://kffhealthnews.org/news/article/pharma-campaign-cash-delivered-to-key-lawmakers-with-surgical-precision/

Koch, C. (2020). Believe in people: Bottom-up solutions for a top-down world. St. Martin’s Press.

Koch, C. (2020, November 13). Charles Koch: “Boy, did we screw up” [Interview with M. Allen]. Axios. https://www.axios.com/2020/11/24/charles-koch-partisan-political-spending

Lessig, L. (2015, November 2). Lessons from Lessig: After presidential bid, HLS professor talks fairness in politics [Speech]. Harvard Law School. https://hls.harvard.edu/today/lessons-from-lessig-after-presidential-bid-hls-professor-talks-fairness-in-politics/

OpenSecrets. (2016). Self-funded candidates statistics. Center for Responsive Politics. https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2017/03/self-funded-candidates/

OpenSecrets. (2024). 2024 election spending. Center for Responsive Politics. https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/cost-of-election

OpenSecrets. (2024). Timothy Mellon donor profile. Center for Responsive Politics. https://www.opensecrets.org/donor-lookup/

PBS NewsHour. (2024, November 5). Battle for Senate control goes down to the wire as spending shatters records. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/battle-for-senate-control-goes-down-to-the-wire-as-spending-shatters-records

Yale Climate Connections. (2025, January 8). The fossil fuel industry spent $219 million to elect the new U.S. government. https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2025/01/the-fossil-fuel-industry-spent-219-million-to-elect-the-new-u-s-government/