The case creating the 1976 Supreme Court decision declaring that spending limits, imposed on candidates and outside groups five years before, were unconstitutional limits on free speech.
Read more about Buckley v. Valeo.
David Meyers is the Executive Editor of The Fulcrum. Before launching The Fulcrum, David spent more than two decades at CQ Roll Call, a leading publisher of political news and information. During his time there, David served as managing editor of Roll Call (“the newspaper of Capitol Hill”) and as managing editor of member information and research, which included co-editing the definitive biographical directory of Congress, “Politics in America.” David went on to lead all of CQ Roll Call’s congressional research teams as vice president of research and content development before shifting to a revenue and strategy role as vice president of business operations for Roll Call, working with the advertising and editorial teams to develop new revenue models and expand the company’s events business. David lives in Fairfax, Va., with his wife, two daughters and rottweiler. A graduate of Tufts University, David is a past president of the Tufts University Alumni Association. He is also a past president of the Washington Press Club Foundation, which works to celebrate and advance the role of women and minorities in the media. David currently serves on the board of directors for Temple B’nai Shalom in Fairfax Station.
The case creating the 1976 Supreme Court decision declaring that spending limits, imposed on candidates and outside groups five years before, were unconstitutional limits on free speech.
Read more about Buckley v. Valeo.

We spend months deciding who to vote for and almost no time checking what happens next. Here’s how voters can track campaign promises and demand results.
In a couple of weeks, another election will be behind us. Some people will be delighted, others disappointed, and nearly everyone will appreciate a little less political advertising. We'll spend a few days talking about what happened, why it happened, and what it means for the future. Then most of us will get back to our lives, leaving the people we've elected to get on with the business of governing.
Which is understandable, except that we've developed a rather strange habit of treating the decision about who gets power as though it's the most important part of what happens next.
We've spent centuries expanding and protecting our right to choose our representatives, and for good reason. But somewhere along the way, the act of choosing became the centerpiece of political participation. We spend an enormous amount of time learning what candidates believe, what they stand for, and what they promise to do. We argue about their character, their judgment, and occasionally whether something they said twenty years ago reveals who they really are today.
What we spend considerably less time doing is figuring out how we're going to judge their performance once they're in office.
I've spent more than 25 years working in technology and healthcare, much of it trying to understand why organizations struggle to deliver what they intended. It's rarely as simple as someone having a bad idea or not working hard enough. Often the people involved didn't have the authority they needed, the plan depended on things nobody controlled, or everyone was so focused on completing activities that they lost sight of what was supposed to improve.
Political promises aren't all that different, although we seem remarkably willing to accept less detail about them.
Consider a candidate promising to lower healthcare costs. It's an appealing promise, particularly if you're struggling with premiums, deductibles, or the prospect of getting sick. But what exactly is being proposed? Which costs are supposed to decline, and for whom? What authority would that officeholder actually have to make it happen? A senator might help change federal law or funding, but can't simply instruct hospitals and insurers to charge less. That doesn't make the promise meaningless, but it certainly makes the plan behind it worth understanding.
And if the candidate wins, shouldn't we eventually return to those questions? Not merely to see whether legislation was passed or money was allocated, but whether the intended improvement happened.
This gets complicated, of course. Circumstances change, legislation requires compromise, and even well-designed policies sometimes produce unexpected results. There are also plenty of worthwhile things elected officials accomplish that weren't part of their campaigns. Judging performance fairly requires acknowledging all of that. But complexity shouldn't become an excuse for avoiding the conversation altogether.
Nor does accountability have to mean finding someone to blame. Sometimes a promise was reasonable, the effort was genuine, and the outcome disappointing. That's worth understanding. Sometimes a politician takes credit for an improvement that had little to do with their decisions. That's worth understanding, too. And sometimes the results are genuinely good, even if they came from someone we didn't vote for. We ought to be able to recognize that without feeling we've betrayed our political identity.
I wonder what would happen if more of us kept track of just one or two things that mattered to us during an election. Not every campaign promise or legislative vote, just the commitments that helped shape our decision. We could revisit them periodically, ask what had actually been attempted, what stood in the way, and whether anything measurable had changed. We might even ask someone who voted differently what they were hoping to see happen.
I suspect we'd find more common ground in those conversations than we do arguing about the candidates themselves. We might disagree about the solutions, but still agree that a promise should come with some explanation of how it can be accomplished, and that good intentions deserve to be followed by evidence of results.
None of this requires us to become policy analysts or spend our evenings reading congressional reports. It does require a little curiosity and a willingness to look beyond the next campaign. Politicians respond to what we pay attention to, and we've become very good at paying attention to elections.
The election will end, as elections always do. We'll have made our choices and given people considerable power to act on our behalf. What happens with that power is the part of the story we should probably be paying more attention to.
After all, caring about what someone promises is one thing. Caring enough to find out what happened is another.
Robert Bates is the author of We the People… Are Bad at This: A Declaration for Better Judgement about Power, Promises, and Progress. He has spent more than 25 years working in technology and healthcare, examining the relationship between intentions, decisions, and outcomes.

Illustration including silhoutes of people at a podium with the US Capitol building centered
Campaign finance is where powerful interests intersect with government. The money spent does not just influence elections, it can also shape policies affecting society as a whole.
In terms of money flowing through the campaign-finance system, political action committees (PACs) direct nearly three times as much money as candidates running for reelection or office. That concentration of money gives PACs considerable potential influence over which candidates reach—and remain in—office.
In terms of spending, candidates for office paid out$2 billion, while PACs reported $6.5 billion in disbursements—3.22 times as much. On the fundraising side, super PACs and hybrid PACs raised roughly twice what congressional candidates raised. Candidates face stricter limits on how much donors can give while super PACs can raise unlimited sums to either support or oppose candidates.
In many cases, party leaders decide where the cash flows. ActBlue and WinRed are the two dominant political fundraising platforms for the two parties. While ActBlue acts independently, WinRed is tightly controlled by the GOP. Also, both parties have leadership PAC funds in the House and Senate.
Setting aside those party-related PACs, the remaining leading PACs are focused on promoting cryptocurrency, artificial intelligence, and Israel.
In terms of money flowing through the campaign-finance system, political action committees (PACs) are three times more active than candidates running for reelection or office. That is concentrated political power that leaves many congressional candidates running for reelection or office dependent on PAC support.
The one thing that advocates for cryptocurrency, AI, and the state of Israel have in common is engagement in the 2026 midterm elections. To a lesser extent, pro-climate and environmental concerns are also active, with $18.7 million held by LCV Victory Fund, a super PAC.
Fairshake is a pro-crypto super PAC with more than $108 million in cash on hand as of August. Its top contributors include Digital Currency Group, Ben Horowitz, Marc Andreessen, Ripple Labs, Coinbase and Universal Navigation.
Fairshake announced Monday that it would support 32 House candidates—19 Republicans and 13 Democrats—according to the Associated Press. The PAC is giving $1 million to each of the following Democratic candidates: Reps. Janelle Bynum of Oregon, Steven Horsford of Nevada and Derek Tran of California. It is sending the same amounts to Republican Reps. French Hill of Arkansas, Bryan Steil of Wisconsin, and Bill Huizenga of Michigan.
"Fairshake has always been and always will be an issue-focused organization. We back pro-crypto candidates who support American innovation in both parties,” said Geoff Vetter, a spokesman for the PAC.
But in Ohio, where the Senate race is one of the seven most contested, Fairshake is going all-in for the Republican. It is spending nearly $30 million in an effort to defeat Democratic Senate candidate Sherrod Brown’s bid against Republican incumbent Sen. Jon Husted. The same industry helped Republican Bernie Moreno, a former tech executive, win Ohio’s Senate seat in 2024 over Brown. As senator, Moreno has sponsored legislation, S. 1492, promoting the development of blockchain technology.
The Fairshake PAC transfers some of its funds to other super PACs, such as Defend American Jobs and Protect Progress, backing the crypto industry. Much of its spending goes to research, media and social media monitoring, legal fees, and strategy consulting.
The industry is pushing for legislation to establish a federal regulatory framework for digital assets. To date, a House-passed bill called the CLARITY Act is unable to clear a procedural hurdle in the Senate.
Next to crypto spending, the pro-Israel United Democracy Project is the lead issue-oriented PAC in the 2026 elections. So far, it’s been hit-or-miss for the super PAC.
UDP is flush with $76 million in cash. This year, it supported Rep. Wesley Bell, in a Democratic primary rematch against Cori Bush. It poured $5.7 million into the Maryland Democratic primary campaign of Adrian Boafa, helping him win to fill the seat of retiring Rep. Steny Hoyer, a longtime Democratic supporter of AIPAC and the Israeli state.
It spent nearly $5 million in support of Chicago City Treasurer Melissa Conyears-Ervin, ultimately losing the Democratic primary to Rep. Danny Davis.
It took part in record spending in Kentucky’s 4th District primary to defeat Rep. Thomas Massie, a Republican who rejects foreign lobbying and fought to get the Justice Department’s records on Jeffrey Epstein released. On that election, UDP put $374,000 into Ed Gallrein’s campaign and poured another $3.6 million in negative ads against Massie.
The super PAC had less success in the Michigan Senate primary, where it spent over $30 million backing Rep. Haley Stevens over Abdul El-Sayed. Stevens’ campaign took in some $60 million in PAC funding. But El-Sayed, an epidemiologist, ultimately won in a close race. In an interview with Face the Nation, Stevens was unapologetic about her funding but said the system needs to change “to end dark money.”
Some of the most consequential political issues have to do with the supercharged AI industry. The industry’s prospective buildout could affect everything from consumer energy and water bills to data-center construction and the technological competition with China.
Follow PoliticsProponents argue that productivity through AI is the answer to the national debt, while skeptics argue that unregulated growth endangers jobs, clean water, and even humanity itself.
So, it is no surprise that AI advocates are pouring millions of dollars into the election. Interest in AI among lobbyists in Washington D.C. has skyrocketed over the past few years. OpenSecrets counted the number of times lobbyists included AI in their filing reports. The figure jumped from 702 times in 2022 to 3,530 in 2025. Furthermore, those lobbyists represented 774 organizations, including many in the defense industry, with interest in AI.
In terms of campaign spending, some AI creators and investors are donating directly to candidates. Others are influencing the election through PACs, subsidiary PACs, and through LLC vendors.
Check Voting InfoThe largest AI-themed super PAC is called Leading the Future. Notably, it is redistributing much of its money to other PACs opposing AI regulations, such as Think Big and American Mission. Top donors include OpenAI President Greg Brockman and his wife Anna Brockman, Palantir cofounder Joe Lonsdale, A16Z Capital Management LLC, and Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz, co-founders of venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz.
The billions flowing through PACs do not necessarily determine how Americans will vote. But following the money shows which industries and interest groups believe the stakes are high enough to spend heavily trying to shape the next Congress. In 2026, cryptocurrency, artificial intelligence and U.S. policy toward Israel are among the clearest examples.
Crypto, AI, and Israel All Spending Big to Influence U.S. Elections was first published by Global Economic Report and is republished with permission.
Patti Mohr is a writer and editor-at-large.

Your vote counts beyond the top of the ballot. Why local and state races matter, and how New Americans are shaping them.
Americans worried about the health of our democracy tend to look to Washington. But strengthening democracy is not only about what happens in Congress. It is also about who sits in our city halls and school board meetings, and whether the people making decisions at every level of government reflect the communities they serve.
This fall, we have an opportunity to help shape that government. Yet many of us will only pay attention to the race at the top of the ballot and barely notice the rest.
That is a missed opportunity. If we want a more representative democracy, we have to build it up and down the ballot.
Some of these offices may be less familiar, but their impact is significant. The leaders elected to these positions make decisions about our schools, housing, transportation, public safety, and countless issues that shape our everyday lives. It matters who sits at those tables.
At New American Leaders, the nonpartisan nonprofit I lead, we prepare first- and second-generation Americans to participate in civic life, run for office and govern effectively. Our work is grounded in a simple idea: The people making decisions on behalf of our communities should understand and reflect the people who live in them. We are proud of alumni like Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal, Michigan State Senator Stephanie Chang, and State Senator Kristin Gonzalez. We're equally energized by the work of alumni serving in local posts.
In Detroit, Council Member Gabriela Santiago-Romero helped develop a down-payment assistance program designed to help more than 1,000 Detroiters become first-time homeowners.
In Nevada, Aaron Bautista, a special education teacher elected to the Nevada System of Higher Education Board of Regents, has focused on higher-education accessibility and affordability and helping current educators pursue further education.
And in Georgia, DeKalb County School Board member Awet Eyasu has brought the perspective of an immigrant to decisions affecting one of the state's largest school districts.
This is all important work happening within our communities. And it's being carried out by New Americans.
Nearly 1 in 10 eligible voters in the United States is a naturalized citizen. That's around 23.8 million people, roughly the entire population of Florida. Our communities are changing, and it's past time our institutions reflect those changes.
There are encouraging signs. Research from New American Leaders Action Fund (NALAF), our affiliated 501(c)(4) organization, identified 419 first- and second-generation Americans serving in 43 state legislatures in 2026, nearly 16 percent more than in 2024. And, despite anti-immigrant rhetoric, over 1,300 New Americans ran for office this cycle according to NALAF's New American Candidate Database.
Yet New Americans still account for only 5.67 percent of state legislators nationwide.
We need more diverse candidates to raise their hands for public leadership at all levels. And, when they do, we all need to show up and vote.
I know voting can feel inadequate in the face of the affordability crisis, attacks against women's rights, and surges in xenophobia. It can feel even more daunting against the backdrop of political polarization and declining trust in our democracy. A single ballot will not solve those problems.
But thousands of ballots and everyday decisions about who governs our communities collectively determine what our government looks like, and what changes we'll begin to see. When we cast our vote for positions up and down the ballot, we affirm the kind of future we want.
So take time to learn what positions are on your ballot. Discover your potential representatives and decide whether they are equipped to address the needs of your diverse community.
If we want a democracy that reflects America, we have to build it up and down the ballot.
About Ghida Dagher: Ghida Dagher is President and CEO of New American Leaders and New American Leaders Action Fund. When she was nine, Ghida's family arrived from Lebanon and Sierra Leone seeking asylum. This immigrant experience and her real-world understanding of struggle and opportunity have shaped her leadership. She recently served as Director of Appointments for Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, where she oversaw the appointments to the state's 350 boards and commissions, as well as judicial and senior administrative appointments. Previously, Ghida was Director of Government Partnerships & Community Affairs at United Way for Southeastern Michigan and led initiatives on immigrant rights and civil liberties at the National Network for Arab American Communities at ACCESS. Ghida has served as a strategist on local, state, and national issue-based and candidate-based campaigns. She is a proud alumna of NAL's Ready to Lead training and has served as a NAL trainer for several years.
Ghida Dagher is president and CEO of New American Leaders

In the final weeks before Election Day, voters have been pressing candidates on the economy, health care, and foreign policy. But a representative's job goes well beyond the votes they cast and the questions they ask in committee. When a veteran's disability claim stalls, a retiree's Social Security payment stops without explanation, or a family is days from an international trip with no passport, the last-ditch call often goes to a congressional office. The First Amendment guarantees Americans the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances, and legislative casework is part of how Congressional offices resolve those grievances today.
That work has deep historical roots in our politics, and is one of the few things that every single Member of Congress has in common, from both sides of the aisle. But casework is a tradition, not a requirement, so every office handles it differently.
That makes casework a fair question for anyone asking for the job. The Member may not take the calls, but they decide how many staff work on casework, how casework trends make their way into policy, and how seriously the office takes this work.
Here are five questions that constituents can raise at a town hall and local journalists can add to a candidate questionnaire or debate.
That last question is not hypothetical. On Jan. 3, dozens of congressional offices will close and dozens more will open. Constituents waiting on a benefits decision or a visa will be caught in the handoff, and how well they are served depends on commitments the winners make now.
Every candidate promises to fight for the people they represent. Casework is where that promise gets tested, one person at a time. Before you cast your ballot, ask them how they plan to keep it.
Anne Meeker is Executive Director of the Constituent Service Institute and a 2026–27 policy fellow at the Allen Lab for Democracy Renovation at Harvard Kennedy School. She previously served as managing director at POPVOX Foundation, and led casework for a congressional office.