Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Reducing the Influence of Money in Presidential Politics is Within Our Reach, from where we Least Expect it: the Electoral College

Opinion

Reducing the Influence of Money in Presidential Politics is Within Our Reach, from where we Least Expect it: the Electoral College

American flag funnel with money

Illustration provided

Reducing the influence of money pouring into presidential politics since the 2010 Citizens United decision may actually be possible by addressing the "winner-take-all" (WTA) structure of the Electoral College. By changing how electoral votes are allocated, the incentive to concentrate money in a few swing states could be reduced.

The winner-take-all (WTA) feature of the Electoral College narrows the focus of massive campaign expenditures in a “Funnel Effect”* to a handful of closely divided battleground states. Because candidates have little to gain from spending in states where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind, they concentrate all their financial resources on 15 or 16 states, or in some cycles, as few as seven key swing states. All this could change if the "battleground state" phenomenon were taken away from the wealthy, as the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) would accomplish.


The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is a pragmatic, state-based initiative designed to ensure that the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes across fifty states and the District of Columbia wins the presidency. It aims to achieve this without requiring a constitutional amendment, operating instead within the existing Electoral College framework by utilizing states' constitutional authority to appoint electors. If enough states join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) to reach 270 electoral votes, the United States will effectively shift from a winner-take-all (WTA) regime to a national popular vote system for electing the President.

Among the independent-minded organizations supporting the NPVIC is the League of Women Voters, promoting the principle of "one person, one vote". They view it as a necessary reform to eliminate the "winner-take-all" system, which makes votes in non-competitive states irrelevant and causes candidates to ignore most of the country.

As of early 2026, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact has been adopted by seventeen states and the District of Columbia, which collectively hold 209 electoral votes. The compact requires 270 electoral votes (a majority of the 538 total) to take effect. It currently needs sixty-one more electoral votes to become active.

Legislative elections will be held on November 3, 2026, for eighty-eight state legislative chambers in forty-six states. In 2026, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) will be a relevant issue in several state elections, particularly in Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. As the compact needs 61 more electoral votes to hit the 270-vote threshold, these purple or contested states are key battlegrounds where legislative control could determine whether they join the 18 jurisdictions already signed on.

Battleground states are fertile ground for the influence of money in U.S. presidential politics because the Electoral College (WTA) option concentrates the entire election's competitiveness into a small number of closely divided states. Because these states can "swing" to either party, campaigns and outside groups focus 75% or more of their spending there to flip a small number of votes, with in some cases over 96% of TV ad money in an election directed at only ten states.

Without the "battleground state" phenomenon, the effectiveness and strategic deployment of money in U.S. politics would shift from concentrated, localized spending to a more diluted, nationalized, or purely proportional approach. Some models suggest that if a national popular vote replaced the Electoral College, overall spending on advertising could decrease in typical elections, as the "winner-take-all" incentive to tip a single state with massive ad buys disappears. Instead of tailoring messages to specific regional interests in swing states, large donations would fuel national campaigns focusing on broad, national policy, potentially diminishing the ability of localized interests to use money to influence policy. In future presidential elections broad national policy, it is likely to include affordability.

Recent polling of independent voters, now representing a record-high 45% of U.S. adults, on the Electoral College is limited; however, they tend to favor structural reforms that increase inclusion, such as moving away from partisan-driven systems. Polls consistently show that independent voters, along with broad majorities of Americans, believe that money has too much influence in presidential elections and that wealthy donors/corporations hold excessive sway.

Hugh J Campbell, Jr, CPA, is a Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) professional and a student of W. Edwards Deming, the American Statistician, often credited as the catalyst for the Japanese Economic miracle after WWII.


Read More

Getting Big Money out of Politics

money in politics

erhui1979/Getty Images

Getting Big Money out of Politics

As we get into the business of solving problems, it’s important to remove the obstacles that block solutions. One of the biggest hurdles, especially for solutions involving government policies, is the staggering amount of money showered on candidates for public office. The system guarantees that billionaires and big industries are taken care of at the expense of ordinary citizens who lack the resources in this pay-to-play environment.

A couple of examples:

Keep Reading Show less
Seattle Votes on Democracy Vouchers Designed To Counteract Wealthy Donors

If approved, the Democracy Voucher program would bring in $4.5 million each year through a property tax.

Road Red Runner/Adobe Stock

Seattle Votes on Democracy Vouchers Designed To Counteract Wealthy Donors

A public funding mechanism for Seattle elections is up for renewal in next week's election.

The Democracy Voucher program was passed 10 years ago. It offers voters four $25 vouchers to use each election cycle for candidates who accept certain fundraising and spending limits. Supporters said it is a model for more inclusive democracy, touting higher turnout, increased participation from more small donors and a more diverse candidate field.

Spencer Olson, spokesperson for the group People Powered Elections Seattle, which supports Proposition 1, said the program helps level the playing field.

"It's really important that people's voices are heard and that candidates can run being supported by their constituents," Olson contended. "Versus just listening to those wealthiest donors, those special interests that have historically been the loudest voices at the table and really dominated what priorities rise to the top."

The voucher is supported by a property tax. Olson and other supporters hope to bring the model statewide. Critics said the program is not big enough to make a difference in elections and has not curbed outside spending. Ballots are due by 8 p.m. Tuesday.

Olson pointed out the vouchers have succeeded in encouraging more diverse participation in local elections.

"The intention of the program was to bring a public financing program to Seattle elections to help empower more candidates -- more diverse candidates, women, renters, people of color -- to have equal access to be able to run, and run competitive elections without having to rely on wealthy donors, special interests," Olson emphasized.

Olson noted because the money comes from a dedicated tax levy, unused vouchers roll over to the next election.

"The goal isn't to create an unlimited pot of money but to be able to provide resources for candidates to run with the community's support," Olson stressed. "But it's not a blank check at the same time."

Eric Tegethoff is a journalist covering the Northwest for Public News Service.

Keep Reading Show less
Dollar in Decline: Trump’s Economic Policies and a Falling Dollar
1 U.S.A dollar banknotes
Photo by Alexander Grey on Unsplash

Dollar in Decline: Trump’s Economic Policies and a Falling Dollar

“Tariffs are like throwing sand into the gears of the global economy.”
— David Kelly, JP Morgan Asset Management

The dollar has plunged 10.8% in 2025, marking its worst start since 1973—a year defined by oil shocks, soaring inflation, and Watergate-era political turmoil. Behind the headlines, one has to wonder: Could America be headed for a crisis reminiscent of that turbulent era? A volatile mix of President Trump’s trade wars, sweeping tax cuts, and assertive executive actions fuels uncertainty. The dollar’s slide isn’t merely a currency-market blip—it’s a warning that America’s economic stability and global standing are under threat.

Keep Reading Show less
Why a College Degree No Longer Guarantees a Good Job
woman wearing academic cap and dress selective focus photography
Photo by MD Duran on Unsplash

Why a College Degree No Longer Guarantees a Good Job

A college education used to be considered, along with homeownership, one of the key pillars of the American Dream. Is that still the case? Recent experiences of college graduates seeking employment raise questions about whether a university diploma remains the best pathway to pursuing happiness, as it once was.

Consider the case of recent grad Lohanny Santo, whose TikTok video went viral with over 3.6 million “likes” as she broke down in tears and vented her frustration over her inability to find even a minimum wage job. That was despite her dual degrees from Pace University and her ability to speak three languages. John York, a 24-year-old with a master’s degree in math from New York University, writes that “it feels like I am screaming into the void with each application I am filling out.”

Keep Reading Show less