At some point in the last decade, American democracy began drowning—not in votes, but in money. When elections are handed to the ultra-wealthy, voters are left without a meaningful say as campaigns are bought like items in an auction.

As a result, American elections have become fundamentally unequal, undermining democratic representation and public trust as money increasingly determines political power. This concern is not merely rhetorical; it is shared by leading legal scholars.

In his 2011 book Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress—and a Plan to Stop It, Harvard Law professor Lawrence Lessig warns that “we take this for granted in America today: a democracy in which the first test of credibility is not votes, or broad public support, but money.”

These structural changes have had measurable consequences. According to the Pew Research Center, only about 17% of Americans say they trust the federal government to do what is right “most of the time” or “just about always,” a level near historic lows.

To explain why trust has eroded so dramatically, journalist Peter Geoghegan argues in Democracy for Sale: Dark Money and Dirty Politics that concentrated corporate power and the rise of dark money have left elections increasingly controlled by the wealthy, with ordinary voters wielding little influence.

This influence is measurable. As it turns out, elections do not just feel larger, more expensive, more elaborate, and more exclusive than ever—they truly are. In 2000, the presidential election between Al Gore and George W. Bush cost an estimated $2.6 billion combined.

According to historical data from OpenSecrets, the 2016 federal election between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton cost approximately $6.5 billion.

By contrast, the 2020 election between Trump and Joe Biden saw spending more than double, reaching a record-breaking $14.4 billion. The most recent cycle shattered previous records, with total federal spending exceeding $17 billion, according to USAFacts.

Analysis by USAFacts also found that over 65% of these funds originated from political action committees, or PACs.

Legal experts at the Brennan Center for Justice trace this steady increase in spending to fundamental shifts in campaign finance rules, most notably the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. FEC, which allowed for unlimited independent expenditures.

PACs allow groups to pool money to support candidates, but traditional PACs are limited in how much they can give. Super PACs, created after the 2010 Citizens United decision, operate under far fewer restrictions. While they cannot donate directly to candidates, they can spend unlimited amounts on political advertising and advocacy.

This shift transformed elections, allowing wealthy individuals and corporations to dominate and shape political outcomes without meaningful limits. Beyond PACs, tax-exempt nonprofits also play a major role in political spending.

While 501(c)(3) charities are legally required to remain nonpartisan, 501(c)(4) “social welfare” organizations are allowed to engage in political activity with minimal oversight.

Because these groups are not required to disclose their donors, they have become a major source of dark money, enabling wealthy interests to influence elections anonymously.

The scale of this influence is staggering. Independent expenditures by PACs, including Super PACs, reached a massive total in the 2023–2024 cycle, with the FEC reporting over $4.4 billion in total independent expenditures. Furthermore, dark money from undisclosed donors hit a record $1.9 billion in 2024 alone, according to a comprehensive study by the Brennan Center and OpenSecrets.

As former FEC Commissioner Ann Ravel warned in her landmark “Dysfunction and Deadlock” report, the agency has often failed to enforce campaign finance laws effectively due to partisan gridlock.

Powerful groups now move billions through hidden channels. The money cannot be fully tracked or held accountable, keeping voters in the dark. At the center of this transformation is the Citizens United ruling. The decision unleashed corporate and union spending, birthing Super PACs and accelerating the growth of dark money.

Outside spending jumped from $204 million in 2010 to over $1 billion by 2012, and since then, more than $16 billion has flooded U.S. elections.

In his dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote,”The Court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation.”

The real-world consequences became unmistakable in recent elections. Billionaires such as Elon Musk donated $291 million in 2024, Miriam Adelson contributed over $100 million, and Michael Bloomberg gave $47 million, sums that dwarf the influence of ordinary voters, according to Visual Capitalist.

Industries now spend millions to sway policy, with tech leaders like Musk shaping regulations that affect their own companies, including Tesla and SpaceX. Meanwhile, voters are forgotten, family priorities are ignored, and communities are left behind.

Politicians are trapped in a fundraising cycle: raise massive sums or lose.

Senator Chris Murphy (D) and former Representative David Jolly (R) both describe how congressional fundraising dominates lawmakers’ schedules, a reality underscored even ten years ago by a 60 Minutes investigation into Capitol Hill’s “dialing for dollars” culture.

The report revealed that newly elected members of Congress were directed by party leaders to spend hours each day in off-site call centers soliciting campaign donations rather than legislating. Jolly explained that party expectations often amounted to roughly 30 hours a week on the phone, with fundraising treated as a member’s “first responsibility.”

These demands reflect the escalating cost of running for office. Analyses of recent election cycles show that competitive House races routinely require millions of dollars to win and that Senate campaigns often cost tens of millions, creating strong incentives for candidates to court wealthy donors and large contributors in order to remain viable, according to OpenSecrets campaign finance data, which tracks average spending by winning congressional candidates.

As watchdog groups like Issue One argue, the modern fundraising system pulls lawmakers away from governing and increases the influence of major donors over the legislative process.

Defenders of the system insist that unlimited spending is simply free speech, with Senator Mitch McConnell (R) hailing Citizens United as a First Amendment victory. But donor data exposes a harsher reality: political speech is no longer equal. A tiny class of ultra-wealthy donors now dominates campaign funding, drowning out the voices of millions of ordinary Americans.

In response, liberal politicians like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have called for overturning Citizens United and expanding public financing systems like New York City’s matching-funds program and Seattle’s democracy vouchers.

These reforms aren’t about rules. They’re about restoring political power to the public. Either democracy answers to people, or it answers to money.