The Democratic Party made it official when it mandated donations from a certain number of supporters as a requirement for the 2020 primary debates: The era of the small donor is here. Small donors—those who give less than $200—are now lionized as a symbol of a candidate’s grassroots support, as well as a guarantee that they won’t be in the pocket of special interests. Money from small donations doesn’t carry the bad associations of money from industries that progressives regard with suspicion (like the pharmaceutical industry), and there’s no expectation that small donors are buying access or favors. Best of all, there’s big money in small donations, with some candidates raking in tens of millions per cycle.
If more candidates focus on small donors, and rank-and-file Democrats continue to give money through ActBlue to politicians who catch their eye, politics could continue to shift slowly but seismically away from big donors. This comes with some potential upsides, but also some pitfalls. Here are some pros and cons:
Pro: Say goodbye to the smoke-filled room
For years, progressives have complained that the Democratic Party’s focus on fundraising, almost always from wealthy donors, was dragging the party in a rightward, centrist direction. In one story from 2018, The Intercept reported that the DCCC conducted a “Rolodex” test for candidates, checking their ability to raise hundreds of thousands from their contact lists—a test only wealthy, well-connected candidates could pass. Fundraising from the rich can be a grubby business, and if small-dollar donors offer a way to avoid that, it will allow legislators to spend less time in smoke-filled rooms. A hopeful bit of news: First-term Democratic House members raised a much bigger percentage of their money from small donors than incumbents (17 percent to 9 percent). If that trend continues or accelerates, it could make pushing progressive policies—the kind big donors might shy away from—easier.
Con: Say hello to the politics of fandom
One common worry about relying on small donations is that small donors tend to be ideologically driven and that politicians seeking such gifts will resort to partisan grandstanding and wild promises that appeal to the parties’ bases. But the politicians who are really good at small-dollar fundraising aren’t radical ideologues—they’re celebrities. Figures like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rep. Adam Schiff, and Andrew Yang may not have much in common, but they have been able to create a fandom around themselves, which has led to small donations rolling in.
This is a way to circumvent the normal political machinery, and it obviously has some virtues. But just as not every politician is suited to glad-handing millionaires, not every legislator is capable of being a social media or cable TV star. And if every candidate in every district tries to go viral, we may soon learn that the country only has room for so many political celebrities. Do we want 435 members of Congress all competing to create snackable, sharable content?
The politics of fandom can also lead to money being misspent. Establishment organizations like the DCCC may sometimes ignore or discourage candidates who have good qualities but lack fundraising ability, but these organizations are generally trying to make sure that they’re backing only candidates who can win. Small donors can glom onto lost causes, sending huge amounts to Democrats who are running against hated Republicans but who don’t really have a chance to win. (McGrath, who lost to Mitch McConnell, is one example; 2018’s Randy “Iron Stache” Bryce, running in Paul Ryan’s Wisconsin district, is another.)
Pro: Small donations are more in line with small-d democratic principles
Relying on small donors can be complicated and messy, but those small donors are more representative of America in terms of race, gender and class than wealthy donors. Progressive cities and states have implemented programs that encourage small donations, either through matching those donations or through giving everyone “democracy vouchers” they can use to support the candidates of their choice. Nothing like that exists on the federal level, although New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand has proposed a voucher program that would fill that gap.
In the absence of changes to policy, technological innovations like ActBlue have made it extremely easy for people to give to political campaigns. It’s unclear if small donors are actually more progressive than mega-donors (George Soros funds a lot of left-wing causes). But it’s a bad look for a party that preaches equality and lifting up disadvantaged communities to be funded largely by huge donations. If money is speech, as the Supreme Court says, more people having a voice in campaigns is surely a virtue in and of itself.
Con: This may be a bit of a mirage
A Brennan Center report from early this year found that while donations of less than $200 added up to $1.4 billion in campaign cash in the 2018 cycle, that was eclipsed by $2 billion in gifts of over $100,000. Even as small donations have increased, big ones have increased even more. While small donors drew headlines in the 2020 primaries, Democratic presidential candidates were still meeting with big donors, and no one but Bernie Sanders relied on small donors to mount a serious campaign.
And one unanswerable question is how much of the current enthusiasm among small donors can be chalked up to Trump. If Joe Biden succeeds in making politics a bit more boring again—a unifying, if unstated, theme to his campaign—former members of the #Resistance may tap “donate” a bit less on their phones and be a bit less enthused about donating to Democratic candidates they’ve never heard of in swing states. Some politicians, the ones who really excel at dialing millionaires for dollars, may not mind a return to the old ways of doing business. And big donors will keep on spending regardless of small-donor behavior. The future may end up belonging to the past.
