Big Money in Local Elections: What You Need to Know

Big money in local elections is becoming the norm. From city councils to school boards, local races are increasingly shaped by wealthy donors, many of whom have never and will never live in the communities they’re trying to influence. 

With fewer restrictions and less oversight, local races have become prime targets for wealthy donors looking to quietly pull strings in your community.

In this article, we’ll explore how big money is showing up in small elections, why it matters, and what we can do to fight back.

What Is Big Money in Local Elections?  

Once characterized by modest budgets and community-driven campaigns, local elections are now seeing an influx of cash from outside interest groups and nonprofits, often from super PACs, or independent expenditure-only political action committees.

Following the 2010 Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC, corporations, unions, wealthy individuals, and like-minded people were able to band together and pour literally unlimited funds into elections. The only stipulation: super PACs can’t work directly with candidates. 

Billions of dollars are being funneled into elections every year through opaque channels since PACs and non-profits have no legal obligation to disclose who their donors are. The 2023–2024 election cycle alone saw over $5 billion raised by super PACs, and just 21 individuals and couples spent nearly $800 million in the 2022 elections. 

A significant portion of these funds goes toward targeting local races, where financial oversight is often less stringent. 

These organizations now regularly outspend the candidates themselves, and voters are left in the dark about where all that money is coming from. 

This trend raises critical questions: Who truly holds the power in our local governments? Are the voices of everyday citizens being drowned out by affluent interests? As we look at how campaign financing actually works, it’s crucial to understand the role of big money in local elections and explore potential reforms to ensure a more equitable democratic process.

LEARN MORE: Understand the implications of the Citizens United decision.

Real Communities, Real Impact

In El Paso, Texas, Independent candidate Ryan Woodcraft saw the effects of outside money firsthand in his community’s race for mayor. 

He watched as candidates spent “millions of dollars for a seat that's considered part-time and makes a salary of about $60,000 a year.” 

It was surprising for him to watch money from outside interest groups flood into his own community. 

“If the person accepting the funds for their campaign has character and integrity, I'm less concerned, but that's not politics,” he said. “So I was really concerned about the amount of money that was flowing.” 

But money itself isn’t the real problem. It’s the level of sway donors gain from their cash. 

“As we know with politics, when it comes to assigning or awarding contracts, when it comes to anything that has to do with budgeting,” Woodcraft said, “there's always the potential to have corrupt individuals in those seats that can skew contracts, money, or receive kickbacks in the process.”

In the November 2024 elections, some El Paso city council candidates also received last-minute cash injections from the super PAC Texas Association of Realtors Political Action Committee. The PAC spent nearly $200,000 on six city council candidates. 

Unfortunately, Woodcraft’s experience in El Paso isn’t an outlier:

• Chicago, IL: Hedge fund billionaire Ken Griffin spent over $50 million on the failed 2022 gubernatorial campaign of Aurora, Illinois’s mayor. He’s one of the top political donors in the United States and contributed over $108 million in the 2024 presidential election.

• New York, NY: Super PAC Affordable New York, which is directly affiliated with Airbnb, has spent over $600,000 on local Bronx and East Harlem city council and borough president races. These PAC-backed candidates have also co-sponsored legislation that directly benefits Airbnb and short-term home rental companies. 

• Boston, MA: Your City Your Future, a super PAC supporting mayoral candidate Josh Kraft, has raised $2.9 million for the election, with a large majority of the funds coming from the chairman of the Boston-based athletic company New Balance, Jim Davis. The PAC has also taken funds from Michael Rubin, who’s the CEO of Fanatics and a friend of the owner of the New England Patriots, Josh Kraft’s father, Robert Kraft. 

• San Jose, CA: Three super PACs spent a combined total of over $350,000 on a local city council special election in 2025, with the PAC South Bay Labor Council alone pouring more than $330,000 into backing the executive director of the Latina Coalition of Silicon Valley, Gabby Chavez-Lopez. 

• San Antonio, TX: Governor Greg Abbott is connected to a super PAC called the Texas Economic Fund (TEF), designed to promote conservative candidates in local elections in Texas. The PAC backed San Antonio mayoral candidate Rolando Pablos, an attorney who was previously appointed by Abbott to serve as secretary of state. With a run-off election scheduled for June 2025, the PAC had already spent almost $625,000 on the race as of May. 

• Irving, TX: A casino-connected super PAC in Texas spent over $90,000 on local city council candidates, without the candidates even knowing it was happening. The Lone Star Conservative Action Fund bought and distributed yard signs for city council candidates David Pfaff, Priscilla Vigliante, and Tony Grimes, touting the candidates’ endorsement by the firefighters’ union. The PAC is suspected to have ties to a resort company called Las Vegas Sands, which has been pushing for rezoning efforts in Irving to allow for a new casino and resort development. 

These cases underscore a troubling trend: local elections, once shaped by neighbors and community organizers, are now becoming battlegrounds for wealthy donors and national interests. 

While the names and cities may change, the playbook remains the same. Flood the race with money, influence the outcome, and reshape local policy from the top down.

LEARN MORE: Explore the ins and outs of money in politics. 

How the System Allows Big Money in Local Elections

Big money in local elections thrives thanks to a mix of legal loopholes and lackluster enforcement:

• Weak Local Laws: Some states don’t cap donations in local elections or require full election spending transparency.

• Dark Money: Nonprofits can spend unlimited amounts on elections without revealing who their donors are.

• Citizens United Fallout: The 2010 Supreme Court ruling opened the door to unlimited outside spending with minimal accountability. As long as a PAC isn’t directly working with a candidate, it can theoretically spend as much money as it wants on advertisements, mailers, and canvassing efforts. 

These three factors create a storm of big money and shady dealings, where everyone’s hands are technically clean, but nothing truly feels above board. Donors use super PACs and nonprofits to funnel money into local races, while voters are left guessing who’s really pulling the strings.

LEARN MORE: See how political donations work.

Why the Stakes Are So High

Big money can influence who wins, but it can also shape what they do in office.

Every city budget, zoning permit, school board decision, and infrastructure contract has real consequences for your daily life. When those decisions are made by candidates backed by powerful donors or super PACs, the public interest often takes a back seat to private gain.

We’re not just talking about ads and yard signs. We’re talking about:

• Developers getting favorable zoning approvals while longtime residents face rising rents and displacement.

• Vendors landing public contracts based on connections, not merit.

• Education policies influenced by outside groups, not local parents or teachers.

• Public resources being steered toward special interests, rather than community needs.

When local leaders are accountable to the people funding their campaigns instead of the people they represent, corruption doesn’t just become possible. It becomes predictable.

It unfortunately doesn’t take a felony conviction to damage democracy. Legal corruption, like the kind where donations buy access, shape priorities, and steer public dollars, is often more insidious because it’s harder to detect and harder to stop.

That’s why the stakes are so high. What happens in city hall or at your school board meeting is often decided long before the vote, when the money starts flowing.

Real Reform to Big Money in Local Elections Is Possible

We don’t have to accept this as normal. Across the country, communities are pushing back.

Some solutions that are already working across the country include:

Public Financing 

Public financing helps level the playing field by giving grassroots candidates the resources they need to compete without relying on wealthy donors. For instance, New York City’s matching funds program provides an 8-to-1 match for small donations from local residents up to $250. That means a $10 donation becomes $80, giving community support real weight. 

Candidates must agree to spending limits and transparency requirements to receive public funds to support their campaigns. 

Contribution Limits

In many local elections, there are no limits, so donors can funnel hundreds of thousands into a single race. Some local governments are setting fair contribution caps for individuals, PACs, and corporate donors, and enforcing them with regular reporting. 

Take Denver’s HB23-1245: this law went into effect in January 2024, limiting donations to $400 per individual and $5,000 for small donor committees, while also tightening reporting standards.

Contribution limits ensure that political power isn't just for the wealthy. It's distributed more equally among voters.

Stronger Disclosure Law

Voters have a right to know who is funding their elections and why. Unfortunately, dark money groups and super PACs often spend millions without disclosing donors, creating a shadow network of influence in local races.

Some states and cities are passing laws requiring real-time reporting of campaign contributions, closing loopholes that allow donor anonymity. California and Washington, for example, have strengthened their political ad disclosure rules and donor transparency laws, helping voters track who’s behind the money.

Democracy Vouchers and Improved Civic Engagement

Some cities are trying innovative approaches that give voters more power.

Democracy vouchers are publicly funded coupons that residents can give to candidates of their choice. In Seattle, the program gives four $25 vouchers to each voter, significantly increasing both the number and diversity of campaign donors.

By turning every resident into a potential campaign donor, these programs expand access and incentivize candidates to build broader, more inclusive coalitions.

Ethics and Oversight Committees

Reform laws don’t mean much if no one enforces them. Some communities are creating oversight committees to investigate campaign finance violations and enforce the rules on the books. For example, Oakland, California, has a Public Ethics Commission that conducts audits, enforces limits, and provides transparency tools to the public.

Trust in local elections depends on fair enforcement. Oversight commissions help keep the system honest and functioning.

People-Powered Movements

Reform isn’t just about policy. It’s about people, like candidates, voters, and communities, standing up together to demand better. Organizations like GoodParty.org are helping Independent candidates run clean, competitive campaigns that reject big money.

When voters support candidates who reject PAC money, when candidates take public pledges to run clean campaigns, and when communities organize for fairness, change becomes possible.

GoodParty.org supports Independent, anti-corruption candidates who take the GoodParty.org Pledge, a public commitment to reject corporate and super PAC money. 

Ryan Woodcraft, who ran for local office in El Paso, Texas, is one of thousands of Independents empowered by GoodParty.org. Woodcraft won his election for El Paso’s Socorro Independent School District with 56% of the vote on May 3, 2025.

The most effective check on big money is a strong, organized people-powered movement that refuses to sell out. This is how we rebuild democracy from the ground up.

LEARN MORE: Explore how you can get involved in a people-powered movement in your community. 

It’s Time to Remove Big Money from Local Elections

Big money is corrupting local elections, but we’re not powerless. We can support candidates who reject super PAC cash. We can demand better campaign finance laws. We can organize, vote, and lead with integrity.

Local elections shouldn’t be auctions. They should be about neighbors, ideas, and trust. The movement to take back our politics starts where we live, and it starts with us.

At GoodParty.org, we believe local leadership should serve people, not special interests. That’s why we support candidates who make a public commitment to refuse money from super PACs and corporate PACs.

When candidates reject outside influence and center their communities, real change becomes possible.

Photo by Giorgio Trovato on Unsplash