Politics

Americans say there’s too much money in politics — and it’s driving election outcomes

Published

2 months ago

May 9, 2026

Americans think cash rules more of the political system than it should — a concern that crosses party lines as midterm spending is projected to once again shatter records.

New results from The POLITICO Poll are stark: 72 percent of Americans say there is too much money in politics, with just 5 percent disagreeing. Across parties, majorities say billionaires wield outsized influence over U.S. politics and that special interest spending is a type of corruption that should be restricted, rather than protected as free speech. Nearly half of respondents say voters have too little power.

Outside money shows no sign of slowing. New groups tied to artificial intelligence, cryptocurrency and other emerging industries are rapidly entering the political arena, pouring millions into competitive primaries to shape who makes it to Washington. Each of the last three midterm elections has set new spending records, and ad tracking firm AdImpact projects advertising spending will once again reach new heights, to the tune of $10.8 billion.

“This type of astronomical spending corrodes people’s faith in our system of government, and I think people are really looking for changes to take some of this outrageous amount of spending and rein it in,” said Michael Beckel, the Money in Politics Reform Director at Issue One, a nonprofit advocacy group.

The poll — conducted in partnership with Public First — suggests many Americans see that influence as coming at voters’ expense, raising concerns not just about fairness, but about the health of the democratic system itself.

Still, there was some partisan disagreement, with Democrats tending to hold the strongest views against money in politics. Non-voters, meanwhile, were more likely to respond “I don’t know” to these questions, which lowered the overall shares of Americans who are critical of money in politics, compared with Harris voters and Trump voters.

Here’s a look at where Americans stand, starting with a place of unified skepticism:

Americans overwhelmingly believe there is too much money in politics.

Cutting across party lines, nearly 3 out of 4 Americans agreed with the statement that “There is too much money in American politics,” while most others didn’t take a position.

They also see that money as powerful. A majority think it can shape election outcomes — with 39 percent saying money can outright buy results and another 34 percent saying it can influence but not buy them. That perception mirrors what’s already playing out in campaigns: wealthy donors and outside groups are pouring millions into competitive races, often through vehicles that can accept unlimited contributions and amplify a small group of voices.

There’s a partisan break in beliefs about how far that money can go. Trump voters lean toward saying people or organizations with a lot of money can influence elections without buying the outcomes, while Harris voters were more likely to say election outcomes can be bought.

Americans agree: Voters don’t have enough power.

When asked how much sway different groups have over politics, about half of respondents said voters have too little — far greater than the shares that said voters have either too much influence or the right amount.

Meanwhile, 6 in 10 say billionaires have too much influence over U.S. politics — a view that’s more widespread among Democrats, with 75 percent of Harris voters agreeing, compared with 55 percent of Trump voters. A sizable share of respondents also see political parties, special interest groups and foreign governments as overly influential, far outweighing the number of Americans saying those groups have too little influence.

Concern about special interest money runs particularly deep. Not only do two-thirds of Americans say there is too much of it flowing into U.S. politics, a majority (53 percent) view that money as corrupt and in need of stricter regulation, instead of following the conservative legal principle that it is an act of free speech to be protected. That includes 56 percent of Trump voters.

Money plays a major role in shaping elections, including in determining candidates’ ability to run advertising to get their message in front of voters, to hold campaign events and to hire staff. It can even shape who runs in the first place.

Americans know that money matters, expressing a broad skepticism about how elections are decided. A plurality believes the candidate with the most money — not the most popular positions — wins.

That view is far more common among Democrats: Over half of 2024 Harris voters say money is the deciding factor, compared with a little over a third of Trump voters.

Erin Doherty contributed reporting.

Politics

When a World Cup exit becomes a political crisis

Published

12 hours ago

July 3, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Many of the countries that failed to advance in the World Cup are seeing the normal cycle of accountability: angry fans, finger-pointing media, fired coaches. Uruguay’s sports officials have gone further, reportedly cancelling a team charter plane and making players take commercial flights home as a form of punishment. In Turkey, where a stunning crash-out was greeted with rage from many fans, the nation’s football boss has asked the justice minister to imprison citizens who criticize the team.

Yet nowhere have the political recriminations gone further than in South Korea, where the president has called on the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism to investigate the country’s failure to advance to the round of 32, one of South Korea’s most disappointing World Cup campaigns in decades.

“I feel not just confusion but utter bewilderment at this unexpected outcome,” President Lee Jae Myung wrote on X on Sunday. “I am deeply sorry for causing such profound disappointment to the public over this absurd affair. We will swiftly push forward with reforms to sports administration to ensure such a thing never happens again.”

The issue at hand is clear, according to Lee’s post: “When favoritism and cronyism take precedence over competence in selecting a commander, the result is as predictable as fire burning paper,” he wrote — pointing back to head coach Hong Myung-bo’s controversial appointment in July 2024.

The selection of Hong sparked speculation about favoritism because the Korea Football Association abruptly selected him after months of pursuing foreign candidates. Critics questioned the transparency of the hiring process, and a government audit later found that the KFA had violated several of its own hiring procedures, fueling allegations of preferential treatment. The audit, however, did not conclude that Hong himself had acted improperly, and Hong himself denied receiving special treatment.

Ultimately, Hong remained as head coach because the authorities concluded that while the appointment process was procedurally flawed, there was no legal basis to cancel his contract. But it explains why the public’s criticism against their national soccer team has been so concentrated on the coach, whom many view as an illegitimate appointment. Hong has already announced his resignation, but that hasn’t soothed the ire of Korean fans. Many believe that the results would have been different if a coach had been selected through a proper hiring process — and it seems the president may believe so as well.

While the political repercussions of South Korea’s team losing may seem shocking, it isn’t an unreasonable overstep: Public funds account for about 30 percent of KFA’s budget. In addition, one of the defining goals of Lee’s presidency has been to strengthen transparency and accountability in both private and public sectors, which is why the opaque procedures of KFA were more likely to catch the administration’s eye. Despite Korea’s political divisions, lawmakers from across the political spectrum have voiced their common desire to reform KFA.

While South Korea is the most far-reaching example of political fallout from a World Cup exit, it is not the only country where politicians have become involved in the messy aftermath. In Turkey, football federation president İbrahim Hacıosmanoğlu reportedly called on Justice Minister Yılmaz Tunç to prosecute fans who insulted the national team following its elimination.

The incident also came after the national team’s official account shared a promotional video from President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s ruling Justice and Development Party, prompting accusations that the federation had blurred the line between sport and politics. The team’s elimination only deepened that political entanglement.

The two cases reflect different understandings of accountability, but with one common denominator: the belief that the World Cup is more than just a run-of-the-mill sporting event.

Politics

The European sports host with the most

Published

12 hours ago

July 3, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Switzerland is busy selling itself as a premier venue for international sports competitions — and the government is throwing its weight behind the effort.

In June, Bern backed plans to fund international sports competitions from 2027 to 2029, and two weeks ago, it approved $247 million in funding for the 2038 Winter Olympics, which it is moving toward securing the right to host.

Ruth Metzler-Arnold, president of Switzerland’s Olympic committee, said at the time that the 2038 bid “is bringing everyone together behind a concerted vision that will bolster Swiss sport in the long run and inspire generations to come.”

Switzerland already has a sizable sporting footprint. Many international sports organizations — including FIFA, the International Olympic Committee, European football governing body UEFA and the Union Cycliste Internationale — are already headquartered in the Alpine country.

In early June, the Swiss approved more than a million dollars each to support the 2027 World Rowing Championships in Lucerne and the 2028 European men’s Handball Championships in Zurich. Government money will also flow to swimming, figure skating, basketball and bobsled championships.

Switzerland is currently in a “privileged dialogue” with the IOC over its 2038 Winter Games bid, meaning that it holds exclusive rights to organize a bid until the end of next year. Karl Stoss, the chair of the IOC’s Future Host Commission ‌for the Olympic Winter Games, said in February that a host election could happen as soon as April 2027.

On the soccer field, Switzerland hosted the 2025 Women’s European Championship and co-hosted the 2008 men’s European Championship. Progress in its long-shot 2026 World Cup campaign — which continues tonight in Vancouver against Algeria — will only bolster Switzerland’s sports credentials.