����������

���������� political scientist Michelangelo Landgrave’s research finds Republicans and independents share Democrats’ concerns over corporate donations in federal elections

In a time when political consensus is difficult to find, one topic that cuts across partisan lines is American voters’ disdain for political action committee (PAC) money in federal elections.

That’s one of the key findings of research recently published in the journal��, which was co-authored by��Michelangelo Landgrave, a ������������Department of Political Science assistant professor whose research focus includes campaign finance and public opinions on how it can be reformed. The paper was co-authored by��Aubree Hardesty, one of Landgrave’s ���������� postdoctoral fellows.

Pointing to a 2017 Washington Post story, Landgrave and his co-authors note in their paper that people surveyed for the article said money in politics and wealthy political donors are primary causes of political dysfunction.

���������� political scientist Michelangelo Landgrave and his research colleagues found that Republicans, Democrats and independents all share concerns over corporate donations in federal elections.

“What we found is that it’s not money itself that people oppose,” Landgrave clarifies. “People are fine with small donations—$5 or $10 from an individual. What they oppose are massive contributions from corporations that ordinary citizens simply can’t compete with.”

As the research paper notes, in the 2024 election cycle, PACs contributed about $5.6 billion to presidential and congressional campaigns, representing about 65% of total contributions.

This distinction—between small, individual donations and large, corporate checks—is central to understanding public opinion on campaign finance, Landgrave says, and voters are concerned that PACs have outsized influence with candidates.

Who’s giving the money?

Voters often view PACs as conduits from special interests, allowing corporations, unions and wealthy donors to channel significant funds into the political system. Landgrave says most PAC contributions come from older, wealthier and disproportionately white Americans. Asian Americans are an emerging group in this donor landscape, but Black and Latino communities remain underrepresented in campaign financing, he says.

“That raises equity concerns,” Landgrave says. “It’s not that older white voters shouldn’t have influence—they should—but so should African Americans, Latinos and especially younger voters. It’s not just about race; it’s about age, class and general representation.”

And while some PACs, such as the National Rifle Association or Emily’s List, are notably partisan or ideological, many are more pragmatic than political, Landgrave says. Companies such as Walmart and McDonald’s often contribute to both Republican and Democratic campaigns—hedging their bets to maintain influence regardless of which party wins, he notes.

Public attitudes: a bipartisan dislike

As the researchers surveyed voters, Landgrave says one of the biggest surprises was the lack of a stark partisan divide on the issue of PAC donations.

“Starting this project, we assumed that there was going to be major partisan differences in public opinion. We assumed that Democrats—much more than Republicans—would be much more concerned about the amount of money in American politics,” he says. “But one of our big findings was that Democrats and Republicans, and also independents, want their politicians to not be accepting this PAC money.”

Again, the underlying concern is that PACs have outsized influence with politicians in return for their contributions, because those donations tend to be larger than those of individual donors, Landgrave says. He notes that previous research has found that less than 1% of Americans give more than $200 in political contributions in a given year. (For their part, PACs can contribute up to $3,500 per candidate.)

“How much influence they (PACs) actually get for their contributions is a subject for debate, but the perception by voters is that it really undermines the democratic values that we have,” Landgrave says. “The underlying concern voters have is that everyone should be able to give, but the amount should be constrained enough that, for example, one person making six figures is not able to make much bigger donations than the guy making $40,000 or $20,000 a year.”

��

"We assumed that Democrats—much more than Republicans—would be much more concerned about the amount of money in American politics. But one of our big findings was that Democrats and Republicans, and also independents, want their politicians to not be accepting this PAC money,” says ���������� researcher Michelangelo Landgrave.

The study’s findings suggest that swearing off PAC donations can be a winning strategy for Republicans and independents as well as Democrats, Landgrave says.

“While Republicans at the national level have not embraced this idea, these findings lead me to believe that an enterprising Republican candidate could make their name, especially at the primary level, by keeping their same policy positions, but really presenting themselves as this anti-corporate, populist individual,” he says.

Risks and rewards of swearing off PAC money

In recent U.S. election cycles, some candidates have made headlines by vowing not to accept PAC donations, including U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Massachusetts, who during her 2020 campaign said she “swore off PAC money to make a statement.” She was not the only one.

Landgrave’s notes in his paper that 44 candidates (43 Democrats and one Republican) refused PAC money during the 2020 election cycle.

Landgrave says politicians swearing off PAC contributions is a trend that has gained momentum since the mid-2010s, mirroring earlier political reform efforts dating back to the Progressive Era of the late 1890s to early 1920s, when reformers sought to address political corruption that extended to buying political offices.

Today, candidates such as Bernie Saunders, D-Vermont, have successfully built brand identities around refusing corporate donations, drawing support even from those who may not fully align with their policy platforms, Landgrave says.

His research suggests voters place as much weight on a candidate’s campaign finance stance as they do on hot-button issues such as gun control.

“That’s a big deal,” he says. “Gun control is one of the most polarizing, mobilizing issues in U.S. politics. If a candidate’s position on PAC money can mobilize voters to a similar degree, that’s a serious strategic advantage.”

Show me the (small) money

Still, given how astronomically expensive modern federal election campaigns have become, is swearing off PAC money viable moving forward?

Yes, but with caveats, Landgrave says.

He references an earlier paper by one of his co-authors that found that rejecting PAC money can be a powerful campaign message—especially when it’s clearly communicated to voters. That earlier paper noted that candidates who reject PAC money see a surge in small-dollar donations. While those contributions do not fully replace corporate funds, Landgrave says they often make up 70 to 80% of the shortfall.

“It’s a significant substitution effect,” he says. “You lose $1 million from PACs but you might get $700,000 to $800,000 from small donors instead.”

However, Landgrave says this model may not scale indefinitely.

“Right now, if you are the sort of candidate who swears off big corporate influence money, there’s enough donors that care about that to compensate you to a degree,” he says. “What’s unclear is what happens at scale. If every candidate rejected PAC contributions, would enough people change culturally to make up what they’re losing? If there’s only a few thousand people who care about this and do this, it won’t work if everyone rejects the money.”

What do voters actually know?

A common critique of public opinion surveys is that voters don’t really understand the issues they’re being asked about. But Landgrave’s research challenges that assumption when it comes to campaign financing.

“We’ve done follow-up work on public knowledge,” he says. “And while voters don’t ace these quizzes, they perform reasonably well. For instance, many people guess that the maximum federal contribution limit is around $3,000. The correct number is $3,500, so they’re close.

Americans surprisingly know the general rules. Maybe not all of the details, but they know more than we probably think.”

In short, the average voter may not be a political scientist, but they understand enough to form meaningful opinions—and increasingly, those opinions lean toward curbing corporate influence in elections, Landgrave says.

Studying union PACs and cultural change

Landgrave says his research on political action committees and campaign finance are ongoing. His next line of research looks at how voters view union-backed PACs, which are structured similarly but are rooted in worker representation.

Initial findings are surprising, he says.

“Americans seem to be OK with union PACs. And what’s even more surprising—so are Republicans. It’s preliminary, but it suggests people view unions differently, perhaps because they’re perceived as bottom-up organizations, rather than top-down like corporations.”

Meanwhile, looking ahead, Landgrave has another topic he would like to pursue regarding PACs and campaigns.

“In addition to the union angle, I would definitely be interested in seeing young Americans’ attitudes toward money in politics,” he says. “I can tell you that, just talking with my undergrad students, they seem even more skeptical of corporate money in politics than previous generations. They’re not anti-money—they’re fine with small donations—but they’re deeply opposed to corporate influence.”

However, Landgrave is skeptical that Congress might one day pass sweeping reform to limit or eliminate PAC donations.

“I don’t see that happening at the federal level,” he says. “The people who reach Congress are, by and large, products of the existing system.”

Instead, he sees more potential for state-level reforms, through voter pressure and ballot initiatives that limit PAC influence—a strategy that he says echoes earlier populist movements, particularly in the Plains and Rocky Mountain regions.

“Our campaign finance system isn’t set in stone,” Landgrave says. “Other countries do it differently. We could, too—if we decided that’s what we want.”

Did you enjoy this article?����Passionate about political science?��Show your support.

��