Count the New Donors

Political scientists have spent fifteen years arguing about small donors. The fight is over polarization, and it is unresolved.

One camp finds small donors reward outrage. In 2010, 10 percent of House candidates raised more than half of all small-dollar money, and Senate primary challengers raised 44 percent of their funds in small gifts, while the incumbents and establishment favorites they challenged raised 7 percent.

The other camp says the bigger problem is concentration at the top. In 2016, about 400 people who gave more than $1 million put up $1.5 billion, more than all small donors combined, and donors of more than $1 million provided almost one-third of all federal election funds.

Read side by side, the two camps point to the same number to watch: how many new people are entering the base, and whether they live where the candidate runs. Reform proposals point there too, including limiting public matching funds to donors who live in the district.

Now read Politico's October 2026 analysis of new fundraising data. One party's online donor count is down by roughly a third from the same point in 2022, while its money holds up on megadonors and super PACs. Its own strategists say the cause is years of asking the same people without finding new ones.

The same test runs on every stakeholder list I manage. Before a hearing or a sign-on letter, I count two things: how many supporters are new since the last ask, and how many live in the districts that decide. The rest is applause.

The scholars disagree about almost everything. On this, they point the same way.