Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Dominant force in campaign giving, Steyer vows presidential run to take on big money

Tom Steyer

Steyer is the latest Democrat to enter the presidential race.

Sean Rayford/Getty Images

When liberal billionaire Tom Steyer announced his entry into the presidential race on Tuesday, his central vow was to take on the big-money influences that have infiltrated American politics. But his own extraordinary level of political spending has made him a big-money influence in his own right — and signals he's positioned to become the biggest self-funder in Democratic presidential history.

In the six years he's been active in national politics, Steyer has spent $240 million to promote candidates — almost all of them committed to an activist role in combatting climate change or the impeachment of President Trump.

And he's done so through the very system that's a prime target of criticism among advocates for revamping the campaign finance system. He has funneled almost all the money through two super PACs he created, NextGen Climate Action and Need to Impeach, which in turn have spent lavishly on television advertising in support of the Democratic candidates he likes and opposing the Republicans he doesn't. Steyer was the face of many of the TV spots.


The world of super PACs and their unlimited and minimally regulated spending was created as an outgrowth of the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling, which is reviled for unleashing unfettered corporate spending on campaigns but expanded as well the influence of corporate financiers, like Steyer. Almost all the leading Democratic candidates for president say that 2010 decision should be reversed — or at least neutralized as much as constitutionally permissible through legislation.

Steyer lambasted that ruling in his announcement video. But whether he will be seen by the party's electorate as an imperfect vessel for a populist campaign finance message, which has become an article of faith in Democratic campaigns, will be a central question about his campaign's viability.

"What people believe is that the system has left them," Steyer said in announcing his candidacy. "That the politicians don't care about or respect them. Don't put them first, are not working for them, but are actually working for the people who have rigged the system."

Based on his spending history, however, Steyer is likely to continue using his wealth to influence politics — this time to benefit his own campaign. Steyer's announcement is a reversal of his previous declaration, in January, that he would not run for president.

Steyer intends to spend at least $100 million on this race, his campaign spokesman told The New York Times. This would put the 62-year-old former hedge fund investor and philanthropist in the No. 3 spot among the most generous self-funders in the history of U.S. presidential elections, far outpacing other Democrats.

If he ends up spending $100 million, Steyer's out-of-pocket expenses would far surpass the combined fundraising hauls in the past three months of the Democrats who have raised the most: Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and Kamala Harris. And his personal spending would be almost half what Hillary Clinton raised from donors big and small across the country to win the nomination four years ago — an outsized sum compared to most campaigns.

Texas billionaire Ross Perot — who, coincidentally, died on Tuesday — holds the title as the biggest self-funder, when adjusting for inflation. In 1992 and 1996, Perot, who ran as an Independent, spent more than $129 million combined on his presidential campaigns. Republican Steve Forbes burned through roughly $118 million combined, in current dollars, in his 1996 and 2000 campaigns.

While Perot lost twice in November and Forbes never made it far in his quests for the GOP nomination, Donald Trump found success when he used his own money to win the presidency. In 2016, he spent just over $70 million on his campaign.

In his campaign video, Steyer underlined his mission, if elected president, to stop corporations from influencing the U.S. political system. While he is not a corporation, Steyer has used his money to put weight behind certain Democratic candidates.

In both 2014 and 2016, Steyer was the top individual contributor to federal parties, candidates and outside spending groups, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan campaign finance watchdog. By giving $166 million, beating out other top contributors, Democrat Michael Bloomberg and Republican Sheldon Adelson. In 2018, Steyer dropped to the No. 3 spot with total donations of almost $74 million.

Steyer has given some money to individual campaigns, but Federal Election Commission regulations limit how much one person can contribute. Super PACs, however, can spend unlimited amounts of money advocating for or against candidates, which is how Steyer has allocated the overwhelming majority of his political spending.

In the 2018 midterm campaign, Steyer's super PAC NextGen Climate Action spent just over $4 million supporting and opposing candidates — and in 72 percent of the contests where the PAC took sides, the candidate Steyer preferred was the winner.


Read More

multiethnic American voters participating in the US election, showcasing the concept of choice in a democracy

Presidents who lost the popular vote often faced economic turmoil. See the pattern from Harrison to Trump and how a 50-state strategy could change it.

Alan Mazzocco/Getty Images

Path Forward from Economic Consequences of Non-Popular Vote Presidents

While losing the popular vote does not inherently cause economic ruin, the structural political weakness of entering office without a democratic majority mandate often compounded the economic challenges their administrations faced. These terms were marked by distinct economic hardships, structural imbalances, or severe financial crises.

Destabilizing Partisan Protectionism

Keep ReadingShow less
people filling out their ballots at voting booths and submitting their vote.

Independent voters may hand Democrats control of Congress this fall — but as history shows, they'll get nothing in return. Here's how to change that.

Pressmaster/Getty Images

Swinging Outcomes Is Not Enough

The midterms are six weeks away, and polls predict that independent voters, who broke for Donald Trump in 2024, are planning on voting for Democrats by wide margins. Among Latinos, the numbers are staggering, to the point that the Republican gerrymanders in Florida and Texas may actually result in Democratic victories.

If the Democrats take control of Congress, it will be because of independents. And what do independents get in return?

Keep ReadingShow less
Diverse People At Voting Booth. Vote Here Elections Sign

A political scientist examines how automatic voter registration is quietly turning non-affiliation into America's largest voting bloc.

AndreyPopov/Getty Images

When Neither Party Is the Default: Rethinking Representation As America’s Electorate Changes

For most of my career as a political scientist, representation was the central theme of my teaching and research. Early on, I studied how legislators understood their responsibilities to constituents — whether they saw themselves as delegates carrying out constituent mandates, trustees exercising independent judgment, or politicos combining both. That work asked a question that still matters: What does it mean to represent the public in a changing democracy?

Today I find myself asking a related question: What happens when the electorate changes but the institutions built to represent it do not?

Keep ReadingShow less
A person looks out at the North Tower pool at the 9/11 Memorial and Museum ahead of the 25th anniversary of the attack on the World Trade Center on September 7, 2026, in New York City.

A person looks out at the North Tower pool at the 9/11 Memorial and Museum ahead of the 25th anniversary of the attack on the World Trade Center on September 7, 2026, in New York City.

Gary Hershorn/Getty Images

How 9/11’s Memory Continues to Shape American Citizenship

Twenty‑five years after September 11th, the burden of that day continues to affect us in ways that are difficult to express. It was a moment of profound loss, but also one that revealed both the vulnerability and resilience of our national fabric. The memories remain vivid for many of us: where we were, what we felt, and how the world appeared to change in an instant. Even now, a quarter century later, the impact of that morning continues to shape how we understand our country, our responsibilities, and our relationships with one another.

To help us all reflect on that day, I invited four contributors to the Fulcrum to share reflections not to revisit the tragedy, but to commemorate the ways it has persisted in our consciousness twenty-five years later.

Keep ReadingShow less