I’ve posted this new essay on SSRN. Here’s the abstract:

In an era I have called “hyperpolarized democracy in America,” delivering effective government has become extremely difficult.  Much has been written about various institutional factors that contribute to the rise of polarization.  But campaign finance has received minimal attention in these discussions.  Most campaign finance discussion focuses on issues of political equality or the risks of political corruption.  The failure to focus on the polarizing effects of our privately-financed elections is surprising, because one of the most robust findings in the empirical literature on campaign finance is that donors are much more ideologically extreme than other citizens.  Nor has the emergence of small donors in the last several election cycles changed this pattern.  Small donors are at least as ideological as large donors, perhaps more so.

This essay begins with a focus on the relationship between individual donors and political polarization.  In recent years, we have learned much more about the motivations and ideological preferences of individual donors.  Part II then argues that, once we recognize the relationship between individual donors and polarization, there are implications for the appropriate direction of political reform.  In particular, if we want to minimize corruption and advance political equality, without further fueling the dangerous tendencies toward polarization and extremism, traditional forms of public financing best satisfy that range of goals.