Who Governs America?

by Alvin Blackshear  |  Historian & Researcher

American democracy requires equal votes, not unequal influence

On Election Day, every citizen's vote counts the same. Between elections, influence is distributed very unevenly. Understanding that gap, and what can be done about it, is the work of democratic reform.

Formal equality had to be fought for. Henry Louis Gates Jr. and Jill Lepore trace a pattern of expansion and restriction: the Fifteenth, Nineteenth, Twenty-fourth and Twenty-sixth Amendments widened the electorate, while Jim Crow, poll taxes and later disputes over voting rules narrowed access in practice. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was a landmark. Shelby County v. Holder (2013) changed how its protections work, and this April Louisiana v. Callais, decided 6–3, sharply narrowed Section 2, the Act's main remaining enforcement tool. Supporters call that a return to the statute's text. Justice Kagan, in dissent, called it the demolition of the Act.

Heather Cox Richardson argues that concentrated money buys access and agenda-setting power, and the sums are large. In the 2023–24 cycle, 2,526 super PACs reported $5.1 billion in receipts and $2.7 billion in independent expenditures (FEC figures via USAFacts), while outside groups overall reported about $4.4 billion in independent spending. The Brennan Center estimates that donor-concealing "dark money" reached at least $1.9 billion in 2024 federal races, and says that figure probably understates the total. That money flowed to allies of both parties. Political scientists disagree about how directly money translates into policy, and spending does not guarantee wins. The evidence supports concern about access more securely than it proves control.

Robert Putnam adds the civic side. The Upswing describes declining membership in the unions, congregations and associations that once gave ordinary people organized voices. When those intermediaries thin out, money fills the gap.

Reform faces constitutional limits, chiefly the First Amendment. Buckley v. Valeo (1976) treated spending as protected speech, and Citizens United (2010) extended protection for independent spending to corporations and unions, on an assumption, the Brennan Center notes, that the spending would be transparent.

These four action items stand out.

Disclosure is the most constitutionally secure, since courts have generally accepted it, though dark-money structures that route funds through nonprofits and shell companies complicate it. That is the case for limits on dark money in the form of disclosure: the Brennan Center and other advocates argue that because dark-money groups can funnel unlimited sums through super PACs, voters and regulators cannot judge influence they cannot see, and they would require disclosure of the original donors behind those transfers, restoring the transparency Citizens United assumed. Opponents counter that compelled donor disclosure can expose supporters of unpopular causes to harassment, a concern the Supreme Court credited in 2021.

Public financing and small-donor matching amplify modest contributions without limiting anyone's speech; Buckley itself upheld voluntary public financing. The best evidence comes from New York City, where $6 in public matching funds for each of the first $175 a donor gives has increased the number, share and diversity of small donors in city council races, according to researchers at the Campaign Finance Institute and the Brennan Center. Supporters argue this changes candidates' incentives: a campaign built on small gifts from across a district depends less on a few large donors, and candidates without wealthy networks can compete.

The evidence is not uniform, which is why design matters. Los Angeles' matching program was substantially less effective than New York's, and one study of Seattle's voucher program found that donor pools stayed largely similar to before, though other research found a more egalitarian pool. Costs to taxpayers and the rules on who qualifies remain debated.

Redistricting reform, such as independent commissions, addresses distorted representation. In Rucho v. Common Cause (2019), the Court held partisan gerrymandering claims nonjusticiable in federal court, leaving states and Congress as the venues.

Voting-access policy is the most contested. The SAVE America Act, which would require documentary proof of citizenship to register and photo ID to vote, passed the House 218–213 but has repeatedly failed in the Senate, including a voter-ID-only version before the August recess; backers have vowed to try again this fall. Supporters point to broad public approval of photo ID and stress election integrity. Opponents warn that millions of eligible citizens lack easy access to the required documents and that the bill would curtail methods like online and mail registration. Evidence on fraud rates and on turnout effects should drive the discussion, and each side should be pressed to show its numbers.

A realistic program combines institutional and civic work: transparency rules that survive judicial review, fair maps, and the rebuilding of civic organizations that give citizens leverage between elections. Neither money nor apathy governs by itself, but both fill vacuums.

Sources:

Jill Lepore, These Truths (W.W. Norton, 2018) and We the People (Liveright,2025).
Eddie S. Glaude Jr., Begin Again (Crown, 2020) and America: How Race Shadows the Nation’s Anniversaries (Crown, 2026).
Henry Louis Gates Jr., Stony the Road (Penguin, 2019).
Robert D. Putnam and Shaylyn Romney Garrett, The Upswing (Simon & Schuster, 2020).
Heather Cox Richardson, How the South Won the Civil War (Oxford, 2020).
Michael Lewis, The Fifth Risk (W.W. Norton, 2018) and Blockers (W.W. Norton, 2026).
Ray Madoff, The Second Estate (University of Chicago Press, 2025).