A new Brennan Center report by Ian Vandewalker examines what implications, if any, the rise of small-donor contributions has on political polarization and fragmentation. The report evaluates the criticism that small donors may be contributing to those phenomena and concludes that “[s]mall donors are not a driving force behind political dysfunction in the United States, and the benefits of amplifying their voices far outweigh any drawbacks.” The report also argues that far from amplifying polarization and fragmentation, well-designed, publicly financed matching programs—which have the effect of broadening the donor pool—actually have the opposite effect.

From the report:

There is little evidence that the risks posed by small donors outweigh the benefits of lifting their voices. Critics have overstated their role in increasing political polarization and fragmentation. American politics has many problems. The rise of small donors is not one of them.

All donors, regardless of how much they give, tend to be more partisan and ideological than the average voter. Many small donors give in patterns indistinguishable from those of other classes of donors. And while small donor giving has increased significantly in recent years, big-money spending has grown faster. The few wealthy donors who give the largest amounts have a much greater impact on American politics and prop up more than their share of extreme, norm-breaking candidates.

Most important, whatever the role of small donors in fueling dysfunctional politics, well-designed matching programs do not make it worse. Matching programs do not simply amplify existing small donors but transform fundraising incentives to change who gives in ways that may mitigate polarization and fragmentation.