How Today’s Campaign Finance System Contributes to Legislative Dysfunction

At the NYU Democracy Project today, Jonathan Adler’s essay, titled Help Legislators Legislate Again, argues that current campaign finance laws contribute to Congress’ increasing inability to generate legislation:

Federal campaign finance laws require legislators to fill their war chests primarily through small donations. With individual contribution limits capped at $3,300 per candidate per election, representatives must reach exponentially more donors to raise equivalent funds. It is common for members of Congress to spend two to four hours per day soliciting donations—time that could otherwise be devoted to meeting with constituents or colleagues, developing policy expertise, or working on legislation.

Former Senator Alan Simpson captured this problem perfectly: “When we were spending so much time raising money, we simply could not devote quality time to thoughtful decisions and debate. It lowered the substance of our work.”

Effective legislating depends on relationships. Developing the trust and understanding necessary for successful compromise requires face-to-face interaction and sustained engagement. Yet when members aren’t casting votes or delivering speeches, they’re increasingly found at phone banks or pursuing media hits, rather than in colleagues’ offices working through disagreements.

The structure of small-dollar fundraising creates incentives that undermine effective governing. Smaller donors are often more tribal and ideological, and respond more readily to rage-bait and political posturing than to the quiet work of legislating. They’re more likely to contribute after seeing a viral social media clip or inflammatory TV interview than after learning about behind-the-scenes coalition-building.

This dynamic rewards exactly the wrong behavior. What gets a member on television or makes a clip go viral is divisive rhetoric and gotcha moments—not sitting down with someone across the aisle to find common ground. Members who depend on passionate small-dollar donors from highly partisan bases risk alienating their funding sources by engaging in bipartisan compromise.

The nationalization of fundraising through online platforms has accelerated this trend. Representatives can now raise significant money by taking controversial positions that energize donors across the country, rather than focusing on local constituency needs or pragmatic problem-solving. The incentive structure pushes toward performance politics rather than governance. It has also side-lined the parties as moderating institutions.

The irony is stark: campaign finance rules designed to democratize political fundraising and reduce the influence of special interests have inadvertently made legislating more difficult. However well-intentioned, limits on individual contributions and party support have undermined the activities necessary for effective governance — relationship-building, compromise, and nuanced policy development.

Share this: