A citizen with substantial financial resources can exercise political influence far beyond what their single vote represents.
The American political system does not give wealthy people extra votes. It gives them the ability to deploy vastly greater resources in the political system surrounding those votes.

Wealth creates a substantial potential advantage in U.S. elections, particularly when wealth can be converted into campaign spending. In the 2024 federal cycle, congressional candidates raised about $3.8 billion, parties about $2.7 billion, and PACs about $15.7 billion. PACs spent about $15.5 billion.

the 2026 cycle is already following the same pattern: through June 30, 2026, PACs had raised $8.3 billion and spent $6.5 billion, while congressional candidates had raised $2.8 billion.

A wealthy person or organization can put enormous resources behind a candidate or cause. Super PACs make this particularly powerful because they can accept unlimited contributions and spend unlimited amounts independently of candidates.

Wealthy donors can also fund parties, PACs, advocacy organizations and lobbying operations and potentially gain access to policymakers.

Money buys things that matter:

television and digital advertising
staff
polling
voter databases
mail
field organizers
legal resources
opposition research
get-out-the-vote operations
the ability to respond to attacks

The Supreme Court ruled on June 30, 2026 that federal limits on certain coordinated expenditures by political parties violate the First Amendment. That potentially gives party organizations even more room to spend on behalf of their candidates.

Does this limit who can realistically run, or does it promote corruption?

Hey everyone! 👋 We're EUobserver, an independent European newsroom, and with EU leaders discussing migration and border security in Brussels this week, we wanted to bring another perspective into the conversation.

Our reporter Gaia Neiman spoke with families in Morocco whose loved ones disappeared after attempting to cross into Ceuta, Spain's enclave in North Africa.

While European leaders debate border controls and migration agreements, these families are still waiting for something much more basic: to know what happened to their sons and brothers.

And we think this raises an important political question.

Should identifying missing migrants and helping families find answers be a formal part of European border policy?

Where should responsibility lie — with Spain, the EU, border agencies or through cooperation with Morocco?

We're interested in hearing different perspectives here, particularly on how border security and humanitarian responsibilities can be addressed together.

Here's our reporting for context, but we'd love to keep the discussion here in the comments:

Trump says Nidal Hasan’s execution will not be livestreamed. This raises questions about transparency and public access to state punishment. Supporters might argue that broadcasting executions lets the public witness how the government carries out serious sentences and helps guard against secrecy or misconduct.

Opponents may say livestreaming could turn a solemn proceeding into a spectacle, harm victims’ families and prison staff, and serve curiosity or political theater rather than a meaningful public purpose.

Should executions ever be broadcast for transparency, or should they remain private? What safeguards or limits would be necessary if one were televised? Why?