The 2024 elections are already on track to be the most expensive on record. And it’s a safe bet that just a handful of ultra-wealthy donors will funnel millions to their favored politicians, drowning out the dollars and preferences of everyday working voters.
In 2022, just 100 wealthy Americans gave $1.2 billion, compared to just over $747 million from all 3.7 million small donors combined. Without big money to spend, most voters get squeezed out while the wealthiest few dominate politics.
It’s no surprise that voters of all political stripes say major donors have too much influence in our democracy and are eager for change. That’s why more than three dozen states and localities across the country have turned to public campaign financing to offset the distorting effects of wealth in our politics. These programs boost the voices of everyday voters by matching their small donations with public funds.
Enthusiasm for this reform continues to grow. Last September, Evanston adopted a multiple-match program for mayoral races. New York State’s program, the most robust small donor matching program enacted anywhere in the country, is now in its first run for the 2024 election cycle, with more than 180 candidates already enrolled. And there are pushes to either expand existing systems or create new ones in states including Minnesota and Virginia.
Experience across the country shows the transformative power of these programs. They give donors of modest means far more clout, and incentivize candidates to engage with the communities they serve instead of seeking big checks from donors. At a time of deep political divisions, polling shows strong bipartisan support for public financing and robust participation among candidates across the political spectrum.
Transforming New York state
New York State’s new public financing program is at the heart of its transformation from a capital of corruption to a national leader on pro-voter campaign finance reform. It was enacted after years of concerted organization across non-governmental organizations, community-based organizations, civic leaders, dogged accountability journalism by major news outlets, and the persistence of political leaders with courage and vision. It provides a compelling example for the rest of the country to follow.
New York’s program matches small contributions of $250 or less from district residents with public funds at a ratio of up to 12 to one. That means that a contribution of $10 from a local voter can be matched with $120 in public funds, making it worth $130 to a campaign.
An analysis of state campaign data shows the program’s promise to make small donors far more important in the political process. In the 2022 statewide elections, before public financing was available, small donors were responsible for only 11% of campaign funding. If the state’s public financing program had been in place, small donors could have increased their influence sixfold, from 11% to 67% of campaign funding. This program is a game-changer in a state where, in the last statewide elections, just 200 wealthy donors out-gave more than 206,000 small donors combined.
New York State’s program builds on the demonstrated benefits of New York City’s small-donor matching program, in effect for more than 30 years. A Brennan Center study found that publicly financed candidates in New York City engage more donors from within their own districts and raise a larger portion of their funds from district residents, compared to non-publicly financed candidates. The program has also played a key role in making city government more diverse and more representative of the city’s population as a whole.
There’s also encouraging evidence that public financing can deepen voter engagement in the political process. An October 2023 study found that Seattle’s program increased voter turnout by nearly 5 percentage points. In the 2021 elections, the program was a factor in increasing donor participation among Black, Latino and young voters.
Public financing isn’t just a reform for state and local races. It has been available to U.S. presidential candidates since the 1970s. That program worked effectively for decades but fell into disuse. Proposals to update the federal system and expand it to include congressional elections were included in legislation that has passed the House of Representatives multiple times and nearly passed the Senate in the last Congress. It remains at the top of congressional Democrats’ policy agenda.
For too long, the voices of millions of everyday Americans have been drowned out by big donors. We should be encouraged by continued efforts to address that imbalance. Reforming the role money plays in our nation’s politics will require strong political will. But as states, cities and counties across the country are showing, public financing will make elected government stronger, fairer and more representative of the people it serves.
Joanna Zdanys is senior counsel in the Elections and Government Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law.
The Sun-Times welcomes letters to the editor and op-eds. See our guidelines.
This op-ed is published as part of “The Democracy Solutions Project,” a partnership among the Chicago Sun-Times, WBEZ, and the University of Chicago’s Center for Effective Government to examine critical issues of democracy as the 2024 election approaches.
Want to know more about public financing of elections? Check out the Democracy Reform Primers, a series by the University Chicago Center for Effective Government where expert scholars analyze and explain potential reform policies. Read the primer on Public Funding of U.S. Elections here.
The views and opinions expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Chicago Sun-Times or any of its affiliates.
