Money plays a central role in American elections, shaping how candidates’ campaign and communicate with voters. From local races to presidential contests, fundraising has become a defining feature of the political process
Running for office in the United States requires significant financial resources, including funding for advertising, staffing, travel and outreach. Candidates raise money from individual donors, political action committees and other organizations, sometimes accumulating substantial sums over the course of a campaign.  

The scale of modern fundraising has sparked ongoing debate about the influence of money in politics, the sources of campaign contributions and how financial support may affect decision-making in elected office. 

AP Government teacher Heather Chase discusses how political funding is something that can affect her students. One name that is always mentioned in the lesson is Citizens United.   

“Citizens United was an interest group, and for the 2008 election, they made a documentary about the Clintons basically just trying to make Hillary Clinton look bad. They were sued, and in the case of Citizens United versus United States, they won because the Supreme Court said money is speech,” Chase said. “That case is really kind of the event that opened the floodgates to all sorts of things.” 

Gabriel Younan ’25 has noticed the change caused by the case throughout his life. 

“I remember learning about Citizens United in AP Gov and the impact it had on the country,” Younan said. “It changed how elections were run for the worse honestly, sometimes it feels like it can all just be about money.”  

 Chase Felcyn ’25 said he believes extreme funding puts the wrong people into office, devaluing the political system.  

“The winner in certain elections is just the candidate with more campaign funds. However, having more money does not make you the best candidate,” Felcyn said. “Leading to an unqualified person in charge of things, and that harms the public in more ways than one.”