Politics
Americans say there’s too much money in politics — and it’s driving election outcomes
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.
Spencer Cox: America’s political divide is destroying families and friendships
lead image
The Shaheen political dynasty lives on in New Hampshire.
Stefany Shaheen, the eldest daughter of Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), won Tuesday’s hotly contested Democratic primary for the state’s 1st District, defeating Maura Sullivan and a host of other rivals despite facing attacks that she was leaning on her well-known surname.
The seat, left open by Democratic Rep. Chris Pappas when he opted to run for Senate, is considered to be fairly competitive for the general election — former Vice President Kamala Harris won it by just two points in 2024.
Shaheen attempted to create distance from her mother throughout her campaign, rebuking the deal the senator helped broker to end last fall’s government shutdown and leaning into her public service in Portsmouth and medical-research advocacy on the trail.
Still, her family name helped her build an early polling lead and bank financial support.
Nearly $740,000 raised by Shaheen’s campaign came from donors who had previously given to her mother — 39 percent of total itemized campaign dollars, according to a Blue Light News analysis. One of those donors told Blue Light News the senator reached out last fall seeking their support for her daughter.
Sullivan, Shaheen’s main rival, attempted to weaponize the scion’s family ties in a year where the Democratic base has repeatedly spurned candidates with a perceived connection to the establishment.
The primary grew acrimonious in its closing weeks as Shaheen and Sullivan tangled over campaign donations and aired attack ads as polls showed a tightening race. The contest also underwent a rapid winnowing toward the end as two candidates dropped out; one, progressive Christian Urrutia, endorsed Shaheen.
A ruling from the Supreme Court on Tuesday means Missouri voters will likely go to the polls this fall under the same congressional map used two years ago, not one Republican state lawmakers adopted to try to pick up an additional House seat for the GOP.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh turned down a Republican-backed emergency appeal that sought to block a Missouri Supreme Court ruling last week restoring earlier district lines and ordering voters to weigh in on the redistricting plan in November for use in future elections.
Kavanaugh issued the ruling because he handles urgent matters arising in the 8th Circuit, which includes Missouri. Kavanaugh issued no explanation of his decision, nor did he indicate that he referred the matter to the full court, as is customary in significant cases. Missouri officials could ask another justice for relief, but such requests are almost never granted.
The justices rarely disturb state courts’ decisions about matters like the referendum petitions in Missouri that sought to put the redistricting before voters for approval.
However, lawyers for Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins warned the Supreme Court that the state faced “disaster” and “unprecedented chaos” in part because primaries already took place under the new lines last month.
Democrats argued any last-minute chaos to Missouri’s election administration was intentionally created by Hoskins, pointing to Republican leaders in the state arguing that delaying the decision on the redistricting referendum would benefit Republicans.
President Donald Trump denounced the state supreme court ruling last week.
“The Election Process, as usual, is being disturbed in America!” he wrotein a post on Truth Social. “Missouri must be able to use the map that was in effect just a couple of months ago, in the Primary. This is a Dark Day for “Justice” in Missouri!”
- Sanders to host AI briefing for senators
- Cruz says guardrails needed after dire AI warning
- Key oil benchmark tops $100 a barrel for first time since July, as midterms loom
- Lawmakers urge Congress to act after AI researcher’s dire warning
- ‘No good options’: GOP’s midterm hopes suffer under energy inflation
- Capitol agenda: Will Schumer go long for college sports?
- Spencer Cox: America’s political divide is destroying families and friendships
- Louisiana’s abortion pill case could wipe out access in blue states
- Schumer and Jeffries opposed a Brooklyn power play. It happened anyway.
- Stefany Shaheen, daughter of Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, wins New Hampshire House primary
-
Politics2 years agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
Uncategorized2 years ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
Politics2 years agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
The Josh Fourrier Show2 years agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?
-
The Dictatorship2 years agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
The Dictatorship2 years agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
Politics2 years agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship12 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words