When Money Talks: Big Spending’s Grip on Politics and How Voters Can Push Back
Resisting the Flood of Political Cash with Critical Thinking and Action
Money has long dominated American politics, bankrolling everything from TV commercials to glossy mailers. Election cycles now attract billions of dollars in contributions and spending. For example, the 2020 election cycle saw over $14 billion spent on federal campaigns – more than twice the cost of 2016 and the most expensive ever. All that money buys a megaphone: candidates with deep pockets can flood the airwaves, mailboxes, and social feeds with their message, often drowning out less-funded voices. It's no surprise that the biggest spender usually wins in most races. Studies show that typically well over 80–90% of U.S. elections (and in one recent analysis, 96% of House races in 2022) were won by the candidate who spent the most. These figures raise an urgent question: How can ordinary voters make their voices heard in a system where money talks so loudly? This article examines money's influence on political visibility and outcomes and — critically — what voters can do to blunt its impact.
Big Budgets Dominate the Airwaves
From television and radio spots and brochures to online ads, money buys visibility in politics. High-budget campaigns can blanket communities with yard signs, billboards, and constant advertising, aiming to make their candidate's name and message ubiquitous. A significant campaign's war chest is typically poured into advertising. For instance, around 70% of President Obama's 2012 re-election budget went to ads, and it's common for congressional campaigns to devote a third or more of their spending to advertising alone. A well-funded campaign can dominate the news cycle and social media feeds by spending generously on media, ensuring voters repeatedly see and hear their messaging.
Money doesn't just buy ads — it buys the machinery needed to get those ads everywhere. Campaign funds pay for teams of consultants and media buyers to fine-tune messages and target key audiences. They finance voter outreach operations, from phone banks to paid canvassers, that amplify the candidate's presence on the ground. One anti-corruption group notes that candidates know they "need to run effective television, radio, and social media ads to get [their] message… out to as many voters as possible" and that none comes cheap. Big money can flood the zone: during election season in a competitive race, it's not unusual for voters to encounter political ads incessantly. In Los Angeles's 2022 mayoral race, for example, billionaire candidate Rick Caruso spent $104 million of his own money on a barrage of ads and outreach, so much that "we couldn't watch TV for half an hour without seeing three Rick Caruso ads," one observer noted. The goal of such spending is clear – to crowd out other voices and make the high-budget campaign impossible to ignore.
The Danger of Uncritical Consumption
All this political marketing may be annoying background noise if voters skeptically filter it out. But when people engage with or absorb campaign materials uncritically, they magnify money's influence on politics. Slick ads and mailers are crafted to persuade, often by tugging emotional levers or simplifying complex issues into soundbites. Suppose voters take these messages at face value without investigating further. In that case, well-financed campaigns gain a significant advantage – not necessarily because their ideas are better, but because their repetition and polish make them more familiar and convincing. In short, moneyed campaigns count on many voters trusting the messaging they see the most.
Research suggests that political ads sometimes sway voters more than we realize. Many insist they aren't influenced by campaign commercials, believing "no ad ever convinced me to do something." Yet studies show that ads do impact voter behavior – including which candidates people support and whether they turn out to vote. Notably, negative attack ads (a staple of expensive campaigns) can be especially effective at swaying undecided voters, even as they leave a bad taste in our politics. A flood of big-money advertising can shape election outcomes by defining candidates' images in the public mind if taken at face value. When voters don't critically examine these claims or seek out independent facts, the loudest (and costliest) voices win by default.
There's also a self-perpetuating cycle: campaigns spend big on advertising and branding because it tends to work – and it works partly because voters often give those ads attention. Whenever we uncritically share a provocative campaign slogan, meme, or unthinkingly nod to a sensational attack we heard in a TV spot, we reward and reinforce the high-spending strategy. In contrast, an informed, skeptical voter base is more difficult to sway with money alone. It's telling that Americans are broadly concerned about money in politics – roughly 72% favor limits on campaign spending by individuals and organizations – yet campaign media blitzes continue to sway opinions each election cycle. The takeaway is clear: if we consume campaign propaganda uncritically, we effectively hand disproportionate power to those with the most significant budgets.
Grassroots Wins on Shoestring Budgets
While money often talks the loudest, it doesn't always get the last word. Especially at the local level, grassroots campaigns can succeed despite limited budgets, proving that an engaged citizenry can overcome a cash disadvantage. Local races – for city council, school board, and county offices – typically operate with smaller price tags than national contests, which means passionate volunteers and community networks can level the playing field against wealthier opponents. In these settings, person-to-person organizing, word-of-mouth, and trust built through community presence can outweigh many ads.
One striking example comes from Richmond, California. In 2014, oil giant Chevron poured an estimated $3 million into that city's municipal elections, bankrolling a slate of friendly candidates and inundating residents with glossy mailers and billboards. Their opponents, a grassroots team of progressive locals, had only a tiny fraction of that money (their mayoral candidate, Tom Butt, ran on roughly a $50,000 budget) but made up for it with a massive door-to-door campaign and volunteer energy. The result? The underfunded grassroots slate swept the election, defeating all of Chevron's heavily promoted candidates. Voters, it turned out, saw through the corporate-sponsored blitz. Richmond's voters seemed to react against the big spending – the Chevron money became an issue, motivating residents to back the community candidates over the corporate-backed ones. This David-vs-Goliath victory underscores that money in politics is not unbeatable, especially when an informed grassroots movement rallies against it.
Nor is Richmond an isolated case. In New York City, a 28-year-old waitress and bartender Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez mounted a 2018 primary challenge against a ten-term incumbent congressman, Joe Crowley – and won despite being outspent roughly 18 to 1. Crowley was one of the top fundraisers in Congress, raking in huge checks from real estate and corporate interests (he collected $347,000 from real-estate donors alone, more than Ocasio-Cortez's entire campaign budget). Ocasio-Cortez, by contrast, refused all corporate PAC money and ran a grassroots campaign fueled by small donations and door-knocking. Few thought she stood a chance — until she shocked the political establishment on Election Day. Her win showed that a compelling message and ground game can beat big money, at least in a receptive district. Similarly, in the 2022 Los Angeles mayor's race mentioned earlier, Karen Bass prevailed over Rick Caruso's record-breaking spending spree, suggesting that voters are not automatons to be bought: a well-known, trusted candidate with community support can withstand even an "avalanche of ads" when voters decide to think for themselves.
Even nationally, there are high-profile reminders that money can't buy enthusiasm or authenticity. Billionaire Michael Bloomberg famously burned through over $1 billion of his fortune in a few months for his 2020 presidential bid, saturating the airwaves with ads across the country. What did that investment yield? He won only a primary contest (a tiny caucus in American Samoa) and exited the race shortly after Super Tuesday. Despite the unprecedented ad campaign, voters weren't sold on the product that Bloomberg was advertising. In case after case, from small-town councils to presidential primaries, we've seen that grassroots energy and voter awareness can overcome the imbalance of influence that money creates. However, those successes require voters to push back against the sway of big money.
How Voters Can Push Back Against Big Money
Suppose money's influence in politics grows when voters passively consume campaign marketing. In that case, the inverse is also true: voters can reduce that influence by actively disengaging from campaign propaganda. This doesn't mean disengaging from elections themselves — quite the opposite. It means consciously choosing not to let paid campaign materials be your primary guide in deciding how to vote. Instead of relying on the polished ads, emotionally charged mailers, and constant social media posts that big-budget campaigns produce, voters can seek independent, nonpartisan sources of information about candidates and issues. By doing so, we rob big spenders of the easy influence they seek, forcing candidates to compete on substance rather than the sheer volume of advertising.
Pushing back against money's influence can be as simple as tuning out campaign commercials (hit skip, change the channel, recycle those mailers) and turning toward unbiased election guides and news coverage. Treat every sensational claim you see in a political ad with skepticism until you've verified it through a neutral source. Remember that campaigns are, in essence, marketing – their job is to persuade you, not necessarily to inform you. So, take your time to research candidates' records, policy positions, and endorsements away from the din of campaign season advertising. Doing this not only makes you a more informed voter, but it also diminishes the return on investment for big campaign spenders. If enough of us actively ignore the ads and do our homework, flooding the airwaves with money becomes a less winning strategy.
Rely on Trusted Nonpartisan Resources
One effective way to educate yourself is to use today's many trusted, nonpartisan voter resources. Organizations dedicated to voter education compile balanced information on candidates and ballot measures so you can make informed choices based on facts rather than spin. Here are a few widely recommended resources (all nonpartisan) to consider:
• Ballotpedia—A comprehensive, nonpartisan resource covering elections at every level of government, including candidate biographies, campaign themes, and ballot initiatives. Ballotpedia is an encyclopedia of American politics and is a great first stop to learn who is running in your local and national elections.
• Vote Smart—Offers factual information about candidates' positions on key issues, voting records, public statements, and campaign financing. The platform aggregates politicians' track records and ratings from various organizations so you can see beyond the slogans.
• VOTE411.org—A voter guide founded by the League of Women Voters Education Fund, this tool provides personalized ballot information. Users can see side-by-side comparisons of candidates' issue positions based on their questionnaire responses. This tool lets you input your address and pull up information on all the races and measures on your ballot, with explanations and candidate statements presented without endorsements.
• Official Voter Guides and Local Nonpartisan Forums – Your local or state elections office or a civic group publishes a voter information pamphlet with candidates' statements and pro/con arguments on ballot measures in many states and cities. These guides (often mailed to voters or available online) must be neutral in content. Additionally, local organizations like the League of Women Voters usually host candidate forums or publish questionnaires where candidates in a race answer the same set of questions. Such resources can give you direct, unfiltered insight into candidates beyond what their ads say.
Voters using impartial resources like these can bypass the big-money noise and get far more reliable information for making decisions. Using nonpartisan guides does not mean adding work to your busy life – these tools are designed to be user-friendly and concise, distilling what you need to know to cast an informed vote. The payoff for this small effort is enormous: when you rely on facts and independent analysis, your vote is your own, not the product of whoever spent the most to influence you.
Vote Smart, Vote Free
The influence of money in politics is a reality we cannot ignore. As long as it works, big-money campaigns will continue to dominate visibility with their ads, mailers, and media presence. But voters are not powerless in the face of this imbalance. We can blunt the power of campaign cash by recognizing how money seeks to sway us and engaging with election information on our own terms. Grassroots upsets from Richmond to the Bronx have shown that even a tsunami of spending can be overcome when voters do their homework and rally around authentic community-supported candidates. We can contribute to that dynamic by tuning out the noise of high-dollar campaigning and instead tuning into credible, nonpartisan sources for our election knowledge. In doing so, we send a message that resonates in every campaign headquarters: our votes should be earned, not bought. And when enough voters send that message, fundamental change in the balance of political power becomes possible – a democracy where ideas, integrity, and public service count for more than the size of anyone's war chest.