The Graying of American Campaign Dollars

The average campaign dollar now comes from a 67-year-old donor—up from 61 just eight years ago. As political money concentrates among the elderly, younger candidates face mounting barriers to entry.

There has been plenty of talk lately about age and political participation. With the average age of a U.S. House Representative at 58 and a U.S. Senator at 64, American politicians are the oldest of any democracy. This has generated widespread concern about the rise of a "gerontocracy," or rule by the elderly.

We’ve been on this beat for a while. We have been tracking the relationship between the age of political donors and candidates in our research in recent years. Our work suggests that the modern campaign finance system, where wealth inequality between generations can translate directly into unequal political representation, is a key factor. In fact, we argue that campaign finance is one of the pillars sustaining gerontocracy in the US.

We’ve recently updated our dataset to cover through 2024. What we found surprised us. Our new data reveal an acceleration in the aging of America's political donor base.

The figure tracks both the average age of campaign donors and, more importantly, the donation-weighted age—which shows where political money actually comes from—across the past five election cycles. In 2016, the average donor was 55.6 years old; by 2024, that figure had climbed to 63.8 years. When we weight donors by their contribution amounts, we find that the average campaign dollar now comes from someone who is 67.4 years old—up from 61.5 just eight years ago.

What's particularly striking is the acceleration since 2020. Between 2020 and 2024, the average donor became 7.5 years older while the average dollar became 2.6 years older, indicating that while the donor pool as a whole is aging, the concentration of dollars among the elderly is intensifying.

This isn't simply a story about Baby Boomers maintaining their political influence as they age–although it is very much that, as well. This comes at a time when record numbers of young people are donating to politics. In 2020, for instance, over 2 million Millennials made donations to federal campaigns. That figure is greater than the total number of individual donors on record for the entire 2000 election cycle. Despite this historic surge in participation from younger generations, the age of both donors and the dollars they give continues to climb.

Much of this is being driven by wealth effects. The amount a group donates to politics is directly proportional to their total wealth. As shown in the chart plotting wealth against donations by generation, this relationship is remarkably consistent. For the 2020 election, Baby Boomers held 53.1% of the nation's wealth and accounted for 52.8% of campaign contributions. In stark contrast, Millennials held about 4.5% of the wealth and contributed 5.3% of the donations. The wealth gap is immense; the average Baby Boomer possesses ten times more wealth than the average Millennial. As wealth increases, so do donation amounts.

This wealth concentration has profound effects on who runs for office and who gets elected. As we document in our broader research, donors exhibit a preference for candidates close to their own age. Our analysis reveals that donors are not only more likely to contribute to candidates of a similar age, but they also give larger amounts to them. This pattern is especially strong for Democratic donors.

This creates powerful headwinds against generational change. This dynamic means younger candidates face mounting structural disadvantages in fundraising—disadvantages that have grown substantially worse in just the past four years. The effect is particularly damaging in the earliest stages of a campaign. "Seed funding"—the first 50 or so donations a campaign receives—is critical for establishing viability and getting a campaign off the ground. Our research shows that for non-incumbent candidates, a 65-year-old candidate raises, on average, $207 more per seed donor than a 35-year-old candidate running in the same district. In effect, this means that a younger candidate must attract more donors to reach the same fundraising levels of older candidates. When the median campaign dollar comes from someone approaching 70, the pipeline of younger political talent faces serious financial constraints.

The 2024 data point is particularly concerning. The trend is not merely a temporary phenomenon; it represents a fundamental shift in the political economy of American democracy, one that has accelerated dramatically since the last presidential election. When political money concentrates so heavily among older Americans, it entrenches gerontocracy, creating powerful headwinds against generational change in representation.

However, there is a countervailing trend that offers hope. We are seeing an upsurge in younger candidates running for office at all levels. These candidates are stepping up to represent their communities despite the significant fundraising disadvantages our research reveals. This creates an opportunity for those concerned about gerontocracy: small donations to younger candidates during their crucial early fundraising stages can have outsized impact.

In American politics today, money talks with a 67-year-old voice—which explains why our policies so often look backward rather than forward. Generational change will come, but an aging donor class ensures it comes slowly. Those impatient for that future should know: early money to younger candidates remains one of the most effective tools available.