Great, thought-provoking piece. I live in NYC and it has been great to see public financing at work in our municipal elections. There is a similar program available for state races which we'll see at work in this cycle.
The Gahanna Foundation believes "Democracy Challenge 2026," a new and novel 5-year public awareness campaign designed to boost registered voters and election participation can change the voting landscape for better not for worse. CIA (civic ignorance and apathy) runs loose. Only CPR (civic participation repair) can counter the scourge of low voter turnout, which rewards poor quality candidates who win a majority of minority voter turnout. Embarrassing and shameful. Learn how DC26 works at www.thegahannafoundation.org, where you can help fund DC26 with a year ending charitable donation.
First off, thank you for the data-oriented but layperson-targeted articles. I love sharing your articles.
Now, I am trying to square your article’s anti-oligarchic message with critiques like this one that we are less controlled by the oligarchy than you would think:
I guess with the influence of money on the electoral system, then the USA, is at best an oligarchy ( if not a plutocracy). And I guess it is the same through all countries who consider themselves a liberal democracy, just, possibly the USA is the most blatant.
But you don't seem to have covered one of the most powerful threats - used particularly by the NRA and the Israel lobby, though there are presumably others - which is to identify 'red lines' and then go after any congressperson who crosses those lines with a disinformation campaign to get them primaried.
Your analysis of corporate lobbying as the #2 influence mechanism is compelling - particularly the $776M pharma lobbying vs $14M in PAC contributions contrast. I'm curious whether you've considered the role institutional investors might play here, or whether you see that as a distraction from the electoral reforms you propose?
The $30+ billion in corporate lobbying spending since 2015 happens with virtually no shareholder oversight, despite evidence that it often creates long-term risks for companies (regulatory backlash, reputational damage, policy outcomes that undermine market stability). Major asset owners like pension funds have begun treating corporate political activity as a governance and risk issue - not from an ideological stance, but from fiduciary duty.
Do you see potential synergy between your electoral finance reforms and institutional investor pressure on corporate lobbying practices? Or is your assessment that this would be ineffective compared to the public financing and voluntary mega-donor limits you propose - either because it doesn't address the ultra-wealthy individual donors (#1 problem), or because corporate governance mechanisms are too weak to constrain lobbying behavior, especially now?
I ask because your argument about finding 'side doors when front doors are locked' resonated - and I'm trying to understand whether shareholder stewardship is a potential side door you haven't explored, or one you've considered and found wanting.
Even though I am Dutch living in France, I think the conclusions of this very interesting article are valid in European countries as well. If have been thinking of a change in voting rules: the younger a voter is, the more weight is attached to the vote.
Elections are a stage for the illusion of choice. The real corruption doesn’t start at the ballot box—it begins the moment politicians take office. No matter who wins, they wield the state’s coercive power to violate unalienable rights—rights explicitly laid out in the Declaration and meant to be protected by the Bill of Rights. All the promises, fundraising, and debates mean nothing when the system is used to expand government power and enforce plunder. Voting is irrelevant when the state itself is the predator.
Great, thought-provoking piece. I live in NYC and it has been great to see public financing at work in our municipal elections. There is a similar program available for state races which we'll see at work in this cycle.
Thanks Adam, really helped me clarify a few things I have been trying to work through. Not really much useful to add for other readers but thanks.
The Gahanna Foundation believes "Democracy Challenge 2026," a new and novel 5-year public awareness campaign designed to boost registered voters and election participation can change the voting landscape for better not for worse. CIA (civic ignorance and apathy) runs loose. Only CPR (civic participation repair) can counter the scourge of low voter turnout, which rewards poor quality candidates who win a majority of minority voter turnout. Embarrassing and shameful. Learn how DC26 works at www.thegahannafoundation.org, where you can help fund DC26 with a year ending charitable donation.
https://open.substack.com/pub/jspinelli/p/new-democracy-challenge-2023-campaign?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=43fxbv
First off, thank you for the data-oriented but layperson-targeted articles. I love sharing your articles.
Now, I am trying to square your article’s anti-oligarchic message with critiques like this one that we are less controlled by the oligarchy than you would think:
https://www.ifs.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Bashir-2015-Gilens-Page-Critique.pdf
Can you help point me in the right direction?
I agree with so much of this essay. Great work! I devoted an entire episode of podcast to discussing it: https://fairdealdemocrat.substack.com/p/money-distorts-politics
Sadly, we have the best government money can buy.
Great work. Thank you.
Remember this by Elon Musk?
> Trump would be 82 at end of term, which is too old to be chief executive of anything, let alone the United States of America.
> If DeSantis runs against Biden in 2024, then DeSantis will easily win – he doesn’t even need to campaign.
> 9:16 PM · Jul 11, 2022
Nothing has changed since 2022. That was when Elon was thinking how to escape the " insistent offer " he was given from Moscow on ~18 March 2022.
The offer had many things that required Musk to become Putin's biïtch, but one condition was to join Team Trump to help him get elected in 2024.
Elon didn't find a safe place in 2022, so he gave up in ~ October 2022.
Since then Musk is what he is: a fascistic ketamin slave to both Trump and Putin.
Great post. Very interesting conclusions about there money matters and why. Nice work!
Terrific piece. And we've got clear evidence that reducing the focus on campaign finance leads to more egalitarian representation: https://simonweschle.github.io/papers/2025_AJPS.pdf
This is very useful research. Campaign finance is important but so is influencing ublic policy through incumbent donations.
I guess with the influence of money on the electoral system, then the USA, is at best an oligarchy ( if not a plutocracy). And I guess it is the same through all countries who consider themselves a liberal democracy, just, possibly the USA is the most blatant.
Thanks - I liked and agreed with all this.
But you don't seem to have covered one of the most powerful threats - used particularly by the NRA and the Israel lobby, though there are presumably others - which is to identify 'red lines' and then go after any congressperson who crosses those lines with a disinformation campaign to get them primaried.
Your analysis of corporate lobbying as the #2 influence mechanism is compelling - particularly the $776M pharma lobbying vs $14M in PAC contributions contrast. I'm curious whether you've considered the role institutional investors might play here, or whether you see that as a distraction from the electoral reforms you propose?
The $30+ billion in corporate lobbying spending since 2015 happens with virtually no shareholder oversight, despite evidence that it often creates long-term risks for companies (regulatory backlash, reputational damage, policy outcomes that undermine market stability). Major asset owners like pension funds have begun treating corporate political activity as a governance and risk issue - not from an ideological stance, but from fiduciary duty.
Do you see potential synergy between your electoral finance reforms and institutional investor pressure on corporate lobbying practices? Or is your assessment that this would be ineffective compared to the public financing and voluntary mega-donor limits you propose - either because it doesn't address the ultra-wealthy individual donors (#1 problem), or because corporate governance mechanisms are too weak to constrain lobbying behavior, especially now?
I ask because your argument about finding 'side doors when front doors are locked' resonated - and I'm trying to understand whether shareholder stewardship is a potential side door you haven't explored, or one you've considered and found wanting.
Even though I am Dutch living in France, I think the conclusions of this very interesting article are valid in European countries as well. If have been thinking of a change in voting rules: the younger a voter is, the more weight is attached to the vote.
Elections are a stage for the illusion of choice. The real corruption doesn’t start at the ballot box—it begins the moment politicians take office. No matter who wins, they wield the state’s coercive power to violate unalienable rights—rights explicitly laid out in the Declaration and meant to be protected by the Bill of Rights. All the promises, fundraising, and debates mean nothing when the system is used to expand government power and enforce plunder. Voting is irrelevant when the state itself is the predator.