In a healthy political system candidates win because they inspire voters—not because they raised the most money. Sounds radical, right? But in many countries, elections are less about ideas and more about fundraising prowess. Candidates spend more time courting donors than engaging with constituents. The result? A democracy shaped not by the will of the people, but by the wallets of the wealthy.

The cost of U.S. federal elections has skyrocketed. According to OpenSecrets, the 2020 election cycle cost over $14 billion—double the amount spent in 2016. Presidential campaigns alone burn through billions, with Senate and House races not far behind. Where does this money come from? Mostly from a tiny fraction of the population. A 2020 study by the Campaign Finance Institute found that just 0.5% of Americans accounted for over 70% of all contributions to federal candidates and parties. That’s not democracy; it’s oligarchy with better branding.

The 2010 Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC poured gasoline on the fire. By allowing unlimited independent expenditures from corporations and unions, it effectively declared that money equals speech. The result? Super PACs—political action committees that can raise and spend unlimited funds, as long as they don’t “coordinate” with candidates. (Spoiler: coordination is often just a matter of legal semantics.) Billionaires now fund shadow campaigns, drowning out the voices of ordinary citizens.

But the problem isn’t just in the U.S. In Brazil, political corruption scandals like Operation Car Wash (Lava Jato) exposed how corporate donations influenced elections and public contracts. In India, opaque electoral bonds allow anonymous donations to political parties, raising concerns about corporate influence and money laundering. Wherever big money meets weak regulation, democracy suffers.

Why does this matter? Because money shapes not just who gets elected, but what policies are enacted. Politicians reliant on wealthy donors are less likely to support reforms that threaten those donors’ interests—whether it’s taxing the rich, regulating industries, or addressing climate change. As political scientist Martin Gilens documents in Affluence and Influence, U.S. policy outcomes overwhelmingly
reflect the preferences of the wealthy, while the views of average citizens have little to no impact. Money doesn’t just talk—it dictates.

The psychological effects are equally corrosive. When voters believe that elections are rigged by money, trust in democratic institutions erodes. This cynicism breeds disengagement, apathy, and even radicalization. People stop voting because they think it doesn’t matter—ironically reinforcing the very system that marginalizes them.

Democracy, like water, should flow freely, not be dammed up by wealth. Publicly funded elections restore balance, ensuring that political influence flows from collective will, not concentrated wealth. The goal isn’t to eliminate money from politics—that’s impossible—but to remove its distorting influence.

Consider countries with successful public funding models. In Norway, political parties receive substantial public funding based on past election performance and current representation. Private donations are limited, and transparency is strict. The result? High voter turnout, low corruption, and a political culture focused on policy, not fundraising.

In Germany, parties are funded through a mix of public subsidies and small private donations, with strict limits to prevent undue influence. The system encourages diverse political voices and reduces the power of wealthy donors. As political scientist Pippa Norris notes in Democratic Deficit, such models foster political engagement and trust in government.

Even within the U.S., experiments with public financing show promise. New York City’s matching funds program amplifies small donations, encouraging candidates to seek broad-based support rather than relying on big donors. After the program expanded in 2019, the city saw increased candidate diversity and greater voter engagement. Similarly, Maine’s Clean Election Act provides full public funding to candidates who forgo private contributions, creating a more level playing field.

So what does a robust public funding system look like? First, it limits private donations and bans corporate contributions entirely. Second, it provides matching funds for small donations, encouraging grassroots support. Third, it offers full public financing for candidates who meet qualifying criteria, such as collecting a certain number of small-dollar donations, financed by reallocating $7 billion annually from existing federal spending. Congress receives $5 billion annually for office expenses, including staff salaries, travel, and perks. A 40% reduction would free up $2 billion per year, shifting resources from political operations to election integrity. ($2B/year). The government spends billions annually on subsidies for private media, including public affairs programs and advertising contracts. Reducing this would help fund public elections without affecting independent journalism. ($3B/year). The federal government provides hundreds of millions to party conventions, which are often glorified marketing events. Additional cuts can be made in inefficient election security expenditures, redirecting funds toward equal public financing for candidates. ($2B/year)Fourth, it ensures transparency, with real-time disclosure of all campaign finances. Finally, it enforces these rules with teeth—strong oversight bodies with the power to investigate and penalize violations.

But public funding isn’t just about mechanics; it’s about culture. It signals that democracy is a public good, not a private commodity. That running for office is a civic duty, not a privilege reserved for the wealthy. That elected officials should answer to voters, not donors.

THEREFORE, under Folklaw:

All elections shall be publicly funded to ensure equal access to political power. Corporate donations to political candidates and parties will be banned. Individual contributions will be capped at modest amounts to prevent disproportionate influence.

Matching funds will amplify small donations, encouraging grassroots participation. Candidates who meet eligibility criteria will receive full public financing, if they also reject private donations.

All campaign finances will be subject to real-time public disclosure. An independent electoral commission will oversee funding, enforce regulations, and investigate violations, with the authority to impose substantial penalties.

Additionally, civic education programs will promote voter engagement, emphasizing the role of public funding in preserving democratic integrity.