Americans across the political spectrum increasingly believe the U.S. political system is dominated by wealthy donors, special interests and outside spending, according to new polling released by POLITICO and Public First, revealing one of the few major issues where Republican and Democratic voters remain in broad agreement.
The survey found that 72 percent of Americans believe there is too much money in American politics, while only 5 percent disagreed. The concern crossed partisan lines, with 80 percent of 2024 Kamala Harris voters and 77 percent of 2024 Donald Trump voters agreeing that political spending has become excessive.
The findings arrive after outside spending in the 2024 election cycle reached record levels and as projections suggest campaign spending in future elections could climb even higher. Wealthy donors, corporate-backed organizations and industry-funded political groups continue pouring unprecedented sums into federal races, reshaping the influence of money in modern campaigns and fueling concerns that ordinary voters are losing political power.
According to the poll, many Americans now believe the imbalance extends beyond campaign fundraising and into the structure of political influence itself. Sixty-one percent of respondents said billionaires have too much influence over U.S. politics. Concern was strongest among Harris voters, with 75 percent agreeing, though a majority of Trump voters, 55 percent, also said billionaires hold too much sway over the political system.
The poll also found that Americans increasingly view voters themselves as underpowered compared to wealthy interests. Nearly half of respondents said voters have too little influence in politics, while far larger shares viewed billionaires, special interest groups, political parties and foreign governments as having excessive influence over public policy and elections.
The growing frustration comes more than a decade after the Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling transformed campaign finance laws and dramatically expanded outside political spending. Since the 2010 decision, dark money spending has surged in federal elections, reaching $1.9 billion in 2024.
The latest election cycle highlighted the increasingly central role of billionaire donors in American politics. Elon Musk alone poured more than $250 million into Trump’s 2024 campaign effort, according to the reporting accompanying the poll results.
Campaign for New York Health executive director Melanie D’Arrigo directly tied the poll findings to the legal changes that followed Citizens United.
“In 2024, the maximum individual donation per candidate was $3,300. Elon Musk donated $277 million to elect Trump because of the loopholes Citizens United created for billionaires to buy elections,” D’Arrigo wrote on social media Sunday in response to the poll.
“Elon has increased his wealth by $235 billion during Trump’s second term, and was allowed to gut the federal agencies overseeing and investigating him,” she continued. “Big money in politics is a direct threat to democracy and the working class.”
The survey suggests concerns over political spending are no longer limited to debates about campaign strategy or fundraising fairness. Large majorities now associate special interest money with corruption and declining democratic accountability.
According to the poll, 67 percent of respondents said there is too much special interest money in elections, while 53 percent said they view such spending as corruption that should be restricted rather than protected as free speech.
That concern also crossed party lines. Sixty-one percent of Harris voters and 56 percent of Trump voters agreed that special interest money represents corruption requiring greater restrictions.
The findings challenge long-standing legal arguments used to defend unlimited political expenditures. Conservative legal advocates have frequently argued that campaign spending constitutes protected political speech under the First Amendment. But the poll suggests many Americans increasingly reject that framework, instead viewing unlimited political spending as harmful to democratic representation.
The survey also revealed widespread skepticism about the fairness of election outcomes themselves. Thirty-nine percent of respondents said money can outright buy election results, while another 34 percent said money can heavily influence elections even if it does not fully determine outcomes.
Partisan differences emerged in how voters interpreted that influence. Harris voters were significantly more likely to say election outcomes can be bought outright, with 49 percent expressing that view. Trump voters more commonly said money influences elections without fully controlling them, though 33 percent still said money can buy outcomes.
Americans also expressed doubt that campaigns are primarily decided by policy positions or public support. A plurality of respondents said candidates with the most money are more likely to win elections than candidates with the most popular ideas or policy platforms.
That perception reflects the expanding role of outside spending groups in modern campaigns. Political money increasingly determines advertising reach, staffing, digital operations, voter targeting and candidate viability long before general election ballots are cast. Wealthy donors and political organizations now routinely spend millions in primary contests to shape which candidates advance to higher office.
New industries are also rapidly becoming major political players. According to the reporting accompanying the poll, organizations tied to cryptocurrency, artificial intelligence and other emerging sectors are entering elections at growing rates, spending heavily in competitive primaries and congressional races to influence future regulatory decisions.
At the same time, campaign spending overall continues accelerating. Each of the last three midterm elections set new spending records, while advertising tracking firm AdImpact projects political ad spending could reach $10.8 billion during the next election cycle.
Reform advocates argue the continued escalation is damaging public confidence in democratic institutions.
“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,” Michael Beckel, the Money in Politics Reform Director at Issue One, told Politico.
The poll results have also intensified internal Democratic Party debates over whether party leaders should pursue more aggressive campaign finance reforms. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse argued Democrats have failed to fully capitalize on public frustration surrounding dark money spending.
“Dems shy away from the issue, despite voting 100% to get rid of dark money when given the chance. (Republicans 100% defend dark money.),” Whitehouse wrote on social media.
The Democratic National Committee passed a resolution condemning dark money election spending last month, though some progressive lawmakers have argued the party should go further. Sen. Bernie Sanders has called for banning dark money contributions in Democratic primaries entirely.
The poll additionally found that non-voters were more likely to respond “I don’t know” to questions involving campaign finance and political influence, suggesting lower political engagement may correspond with less familiarity about how election spending functions. Among active voters, however, skepticism about money in politics remained widespread regardless of party affiliation.
As outside spending continues to rise and wealthy donors gain greater influence over campaigns, the survey indicates that many Americans increasingly see the political system as tilted toward billionaire interests and organized money rather than ordinary voters. The findings also suggest mounting public concern that campaign finance rules established after Citizens United have fundamentally altered public trust in elections and democratic representation itself.
COMMENTS