How to Get Money Out of Politics: What Actually Works

Can you actually get money out of politics? Not entirely — and anyone promising otherwise is selling something. But the honest answer to how to get money out of politics is that you can change what money has to do to be effective: force it into daylight, make small donors competitive with large ones, and slow the revolving door between government service and paid influence. Those three levers are legal, tested in states and cities right now, and they work without waiting for a constitutional amendment.

That is a less satisfying answer than “ban it all.” It is also the only one that has ever moved.

Why is there so much money in American politics?

Because campaigns are expensive and attention is scarce. A competitive U.S. House seat now routinely costs millions; a Senate race can cost tens of millions. Candidates do not raise that kind of money because they enjoy it. Ask almost any member of Congress what they like least about the job and they will tell you it is call time — hours a day in a cubicle off Capitol Hill, dialing donors, reading from a script.

Layered on top is a legal architecture the courts built over fifty years. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that spending money to spread a political message is a form of protected speech, which means Congress can regulate contributions to candidates far more easily than it can regulate independent spending by outside groups. That distinction is why contribution limits coexist with super PACs that can raise and spend without limit, as long as they do not coordinate with a campaign.

Notice what is not in that explanation: a villain. Both major parties raise record sums. Both have built outside-spending networks. Both say the system is broken while competing ferociously inside it. Treating money in politics as one side’s sin is the fastest way to guarantee nothing changes, because reform that only disarms your opponents will never pass.

What would it actually take to get money out of politics?

A full ban would require either a constitutional amendment or a reversal of decades of First Amendment doctrine. Amendments need two-thirds of both chambers and thirty-eight states. It is worth pursuing if you believe in it, but it is a twenty-year project, and treating it as the only real reform makes every achievable step look like a sellout.

The achievable version is narrower and more useful: stop trying to eliminate political money and start changing its incentives. Money follows the path of least resistance. Close some paths, widen others, and you change who gets heard without ever telling a citizen they cannot support a cause.

Which campaign finance reforms actually work?

Disclosure. The least glamorous reform is the most durable. When a donor’s name is attached to a message, the message gets judged accordingly. Dark money — spending routed through nonprofits that never name their funders — is the piece of the system with the weakest constitutional protection and the broadest public support for fixing. Courts have been consistently friendlier to transparency rules than to spending caps.

Small-dollar matching. Several cities and states multiply small contributions from local residents — often six-to-one — so that a $20 gift from a constituent carries real weight against a $2,000 check from an industry PAC. New York City, Seattle, and Connecticut have run versions of this for years. The research is mixed on whether it reduces total spending, but clearer that it broadens the donor pool and makes it viable to run without a pre-existing network of wealthy friends. That is the part that matters for who gets to serve.

Cooling-off periods. Much of the influence money buys is not a bribe. It is a job offer, years later. Longer bans on former members and senior staff lobbying their old colleagues change the calculation of what a career in public service is for. Tree of Liberty spends a lot of time in that gray zone, because the gray zone is where the real story usually is.

State and local first. Every reform above exists somewhere in America today. None required Congress. If you want proof that the system can change, you will find it in a statehouse long before you find it in Washington.

What can one citizen realistically do?

Three things, in ascending order of effort. Give small and give local — in a matching-funds jurisdiction, a modest check is a multiplier, and in a down-ballot race it is often decisive. Look up who funded the last campaign in your district before you vote; the filings are public and searchable, and five minutes with them tells you more about a candidate’s coalition than a year of advertising. And support the ballot measures and state bills that put disclosure and matching funds on the table, because that is where this fight is actually being won.

None of that is a cure. All of it is leverage, which is the thing cynicism talks you out of using. The system is not a monolith handed down from on high — it is a set of rules written by people, which means it can be rewritten by people. That stubborn conviction is the reason I write the Bull Moose series the way I do, and why the free prequel starts where it does: with someone deciding the rules are worth fighting over.

Frequently asked questions

Can money ever be completely removed from politics? Realistically, no. Courts have long treated political spending as protected speech, so a total ban would require a constitutional amendment. The achievable goal is changing money’s incentives through disclosure, small-dollar matching, and lobbying restrictions.

What is the difference between a PAC and a super PAC? A traditional PAC gives limited amounts directly to candidates. A super PAC can raise and spend unlimited sums on independent advertising but cannot legally coordinate with a campaign.

Do small-dollar matching programs actually work? Evidence from New York City, Seattle, and Connecticut suggests they broaden the donor pool and make it viable to run without wealthy connections, even if they do not reduce total campaign spending.

If this resonated, you’ll want the dispatch. Subscribe to Moose & Quill for essays on democracy, power, and the stories that help us imagine something better.

---

About the author: Michael Fedor is the award-winning author of the Bull Moose political thriller series. Drawing on 20 years inside politics and campaigns, he writes pulse-pounding fiction about power, democracy, and the fragile machinery of the republic.