January, 14 2015, 03:00pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Rick Bielke,Communications Director,(Ph)202.293.0222 | (Fx)202.293.0202,rbielke@publicampaign.org
Small Donor Solutions for Big Money: The 2014 Elections and Beyond
There's no denying it. Big money in elections is getting bigger and the increased cost of elections is fueled by a shrinking handful of America's wealthiest individuals. Many solution-oriented advocates believe one of the major paths to reversing this trend is investing in small donor-driven campaigns. This report reviews the status of this policy in light of 2014 election spending and the challenges of the post-Citizens United campaign finance era.
WASHINGTON
There's no denying it. Big money in elections is getting bigger and the increased cost of elections is fueled by a shrinking handful of America's wealthiest individuals. Many solution-oriented advocates believe one of the major paths to reversing this trend is investing in small donor-driven campaigns. This report reviews the status of this policy in light of 2014 election spending and the challenges of the post-Citizens United campaign finance era.
There's some good news. State-level, broad "clean elections" models are still drawing in hundreds of candidates, with Connecticut leading the way. Our analysis shows federal small dollar matching systems like the Government by the People Act could also be effective, even in the imperfect world of growing outside spending. In fact, most House winners could have been competitively funded with this federal program. Finally, Americans are making small political donations on a large scale collectively.
Using data currently available, our initial analyses of 2014 elections surfaced these key findings:
- Nearly 300 officials elected this fall in Connecticut, Maine, and Arizona ran with public grants after raising local, small donations.
- A full 84 percent of incoming Connecticut state officials were elected under the state's Citizens' Election Program, including all six statewide winners.
- Since 2010, Connecticut candidates have reduced their financial reliance on the wealthiest zip codes in the state and increased their reliance on donations from middle and low income areas.
- A majority of winning legislative candidates participated in Maine's Clean Elections program.
- At the federal level, outside spending mattered tremendously in a small set of key races, but it is traditional candidate fundraising that most candidates still rely on.
- The vast majority of 2014 House winners, had they used the Government by the People Act, would have had sufficient funds, if not more, to compete this past cycle, including in many of the races with outside spending.
- Small donors, those donating $200 or less, gave a combined $1 billion to federal candidates, party committees, and political action committees (PACs) this cycle. While federal candidates can do more to reach small donors, Americans have shown their willingness, in large numbers, to engage politically through small contributions.
Public Campaign is a non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to sweeping campaign reform that aims to dramatically reduce the role of big special interest money in American politics. Public Campaign is laying the foundation for reform by working with a broad range of organizations, including local community groups, around the country that are fighting for change and national organizations whose members are not fairly represented under the current campaign finance system. Together we are building a network of national and state-based efforts to create a powerful national force for federal and state campaign reform.
LATEST NEWS
'Monstrous' Trump Rule Change Could Slash Benefits to 400,000 Adults With Down Syndrome and Other Disabilities
"As they push to build a $400 million ballroom, they are stripping disabled Americans of their meager benefits," said one congressional candidate.
Apr 29, 2026
The Trump administration is pushing forward with a new rule that could strip as many as 400,000 low-income adults with disabilities of hundreds of dollars per month.
ProPublica reported on Tuesday that the Trump administration was planning a major rule change to the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program, which provides basic income to adults with severe disabilities like Down syndrome and autism and some indigent elderly people who may struggle to support themselves.
The program, which serves around 7.5 million Americans, typically provides payments of around $600-700 per month—enough to help pay for basic needs like food and shelter, but not enough to live on independently, especially for those already struggling due to disabilities. As a result, many SSI recipients still reside with family members.
Under the rule change, ProPublica reported that the administration would "penalize" these individuals "simply for living in the same home as their families, according to four federal officials, internal emails, and a federal regulatory listing."
According to the report:
The administration is working on a rule change that would deduct the value of a disabled adult’s bedroom from their SSI allotment, even if the family members they live with are poor enough to qualify for food stamps. This would mean slashing the benefits of some of the most low-income SSI recipients by up to a third... or ending their support altogether.
Kathleen Romig and Devin O’Connor of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities explained the proposed rule change in a policy briefing in August:
Currently, very low-income disabled or older people who receive SSI can have their benefits reduced by up to one-third (about $300 a month) if they receive “in-kind support and maintenance,” including a place to stay. Similarly, SSI recipients can have their benefits reduced based on the income of their parents (if they are under 18) or spouse, under the assumption that they will contribute to an SSI beneficiary’s living expenses. However, these reductions don’t apply to beneficiaries who live in a household that receives “public assistance,” including food assistance programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). That’s because households financially precarious enough to qualify for those benefits can’t afford to financially support SSI recipients...
SSI’s public assistance household rule has been updated to reflect the ways struggling families make ends meet—but the Trump administration proposal would return the program to the outdated criteria first established in 1980... This change would ignore the reality that families who receive SNAP have very low incomes—the typical multi-person SNAP household with at least one member who receives SSI has an annual income of around $17,000, well below the poverty line.
According to ProPublica, one woman with Down syndrome in Philadelphia, 22-year-old Shy’tyra Burton, who has struggled to find a job due to her intellectual disability, is expected to see her $994 monthly benefit cut by about $330 a month because she has continued to live with her father, Rondell, a sanitation worker.
He makes about $2,000 a month, or $24,000 annually—well below the federal poverty line for a single parent with multiple children. Even with the SSI payment, which allows Shy’tyra to pay for her own internet and meals, Rondell said that he's "still barely managing."
Using actuarial figures from the Social Security Administration (SSA), which administers the program, ProPublica determined that as many as 400,000 disabled people and indigent elderly people could lose some or all of their benefits.
"These are not people gaming the system," argued Rep. Mike Levin (D-Calif.), whose state could see more than 57,000 people lose benefits as a result of the cuts.
"Fewer than one in three applicants is approved," he said. "The process takes years and requires medical and vocational evaluations.
"The administration calls this rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse. It is not," he continued. "This policy costs more, helps no one, and punishes families for taking care of their own."
The rule change is being reviewed by the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), where it will be subject to editing before being sent back to the Social Security Administration, where it will face a period of public comment.
The OMB is administered by Director Russell Vought, one of the architects of the Heritage Foundation's far-right Project 2025 agenda. In addition to using last year's government shutdown to withhold SNAP benefits from around 42 million Americans and starve blue states of funding for federal programs, he has used the office to push for a full-fledged assault on benefits for the poor, disabled, and elderly, including those administered by the SSA.
Vought reportedly led the charge for the SSA to raise the age threshold for disabled adults receiving Social Security disability insurance from 50 to 60, or to remove age as a factor altogether when determining whether a disabled individual has the capability to work. According to the Urban Institute, the plan could have kicked 750,000 people off their disability payments and reduced payouts by $82 million over the next decade.
The administration ultimately backed off the proposal once it became clear that many of those hurt would be older coal miners and factory workers in red states, some of Trump's core demographics of support. But it is still reportedly soldiering ahead with its plan to cut SSI payments for those with disabilities.
Vought has justified these and other dramatic cuts as part of efforts to make the government more efficient. But ProPublica found that while cutting Burton’s benefit could save taxpayers about $11 per day, it could mean her father is unable to care for her, forcing her into a state facility that costs hundreds of dollars a day in public money.
"The Trump rule would have harmful consequences beyond the loss of benefits and eligibility, creating heartbreaking dilemmas for SSI recipients and their families," explained Romig and O'Connor. "It could discourage families from offering help to their loved ones, for fear of jeopardizing their meager benefits. It could force more people to turn to institutional care because they could no longer afford to live in the community."
Fred Wellman, a military veteran and Democratic candidate for the second congressional district in Missouri—a state where around 6,000 disabled and elderly people could potentially be affected by the proposed cuts—called the policy a “truly monstrous decision” especially in light of a recent Republican proposal for Congress to allocate $400 million for Trump’s White House ballroom project after a court ruled it could not be funded using donations.
"As they push to build a $400 million ballroom, they are stripping disabled Americans of their meager benefits," Wellman said. "Over and over, this administration and the GOP choose cruelty over caring. It’s just sick."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Maine Lawmakers Fail to Override Mills' Data Center Ban Veto That Won Applause From Trump-Aligned Group
"When a corporate-funded group like Americans for Prosperity is cheering a veto that benefits an energy- and water-intensive industry like data centers," said one advocate, "it raises serious flags for the public."
Apr 29, 2026
The Maine Legislature on Wednesday failed to override Democratic Gov. Janet Mills' veto of a bill that would have established an 18-month moratorium on the expansion of artificial intelligence data centers in the state.
The state House needed 101 votes, of two-thirds of the members' support, to override the veto. The vote on reversing the governor's decision was 72-65.
Environmental and local control advocates were among those expressing anger in recent days over Mills' veto of the trailblazing bill that would have made Maine the first state to impose such a moratorium—while a group with strong ties to President Donald Trump and the Republican Party applauded the move this week, claiming the Democratic governor, also running for US Senate this year, has stood up "for Maine’s economic future" by siding against the ban.
“Gov. Mills made the right decision to veto the data center moratorium," said Ross Connolly, Northeast region director for Americans for Prosperity, the right-wing political advocacy group affiliated with the billionaire Koch brothers, earlier this week.
"At a time when states across the country are competing for investment and innovation, this veto sends a strong signal that Maine is open for business and reinforces the state’s commitment to growth and innovation," said Connolly. "AFP looks forward to working with policymakers to advance solutions that keep Maine on a path toward long-term economic opportunity.”
The group previously denounced the Maine Legislature for passing the bill, which would have stopped state and local governments from approving data center projects with electrical loads of 20 megawatts or more until November 2027. The bill passed with bipartisan support, and its lead sponsor, state Rep. Melanie Sachs (D-48), told Puck that the protections in the legislation would allow the government to “get it right" in Maine by studying the impacts of large data centers before allowing industry-friendly expansions to continue.
President Donald Trump and lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have pushed for state and local governments to welcome the "innovation" offered by artificial intelligence companies by allowing the construction of massive data centers.
But opposition lawmakers in Congress and state legislatures as well as numerous public advocacy groups have warned the expansion of the energy-sucking facilities is already pushing working families' electricity bills higher, straining resources by consuming up to 5 million gallons of water per day, and being used for an industry that's projected to replace nearly 100 million jobs in the next decade, according to an analysis put out by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).
In numerous states—including Arizona, Wisconsin, and Michigan—communities have rallied to block the construction of data centers, citing many of those concerns.
Trump issued an executive order late last year aimed at blocking state governments from regulating the rapidly growing industry.
In Maine, Mills vetoed the legislation after lawmakers voted down an amendment that would have provided a carve-out for the town of Jay, where the local Select Board voted last month to approve a data center that would be housed in the former Androscoggin Mill site. The paper mill was closed in 2023 following a wood pulp digester explosion on the premises, resulting in the loss of about 230 jobs.
"People will say all kinds of things to get their project approved. And then rural communities are often left holding the bag... And the record is clear: Data centers are not producing jobs. They're taking jobs away from people."
Though local policymakers backed the plan to build an over 200-megawatt data center, Seth Berry of Our Power, a group that advocates for clean energy and local control over energy resources, emphasized that Republican lawmakers in Maine appeared intent on ensuring the desires of working people in Jay and other towns aren't represented.
An amendment that would have allowed the Jay project to go forward also would have permitted data centers in "any community where there was a referendum of all voters," Berry, executive director of the group and a former Democratic member of the state House, told Common Dreams. "That amendment was shot down 29-115, and the vast majority of those who voted against it also voted against any moratorium at all."
"So it leaves me wondering, do people really want local communities to have a say?" said Berry, who also served in the state legislature and was House majority leader as well as leading the Joint Standing Committee on Energy, Utilities and Technology for three terms. "I'm all for that. I don't think that's what data center developers want."
He added that plans for data centers have been developed "secretly" between companies and Mills' Department of Energy Resources, which officials "failed to disclose" at a public hearing on the moratorium.
"There was extraordinary dishonesty on the part of the administration," Berry told Common Dreams.
Jim Walsh, policy director for Food & Watch, which advocated for Maine's data center moratorium, cautioned that while many people in Jay and other towns where the facilities are being considered may see the expansion of data centers as a solution to job loss and economic struggles, the employment provided by the centers would mostly be "some level of short-term construction jobs that tend to be for people that aren't in the communities."
"The long-term job prospects are minimal," Walsh told Common Dreams, citing research. "While the impacts on our energy and water infrastructure and water supplies are significant, and we need to be working to move forward with investments in communities that will help to improve people's lives, not drive up costs and allow corporations to profit off of scarce water resources."
Berry suggested that working people in struggling towns where data centers are being proposed need only "look at the facts" to determine whether the "pretty promises made by data center developers are actually trustworthy."
"People will say all kinds of things to get their project approved," Berry told Common Dreams. "And then rural communities are often left holding the bag. And that's exactly the reason in many cases that these towns are in desperate situations, because they trusted people in the past who proved not trustworthy. We've seen paper mills purchased and then sold for scrap after promises of hundreds of jobs. And the record is clear: Data centers are not producing jobs. They're taking jobs away from people."
As Drop Site News reported Tuesday, job loss among Jay residents who worked in paper manufacturing wasn't just the result of the 2023 equipment explosion. Private equity firm Apollo Global Management ran the paper mill in Jay as well as one in Bucksport from 2006-20, during which time it bankrupted "them both, selling off their carcasses for scraps, and eliminating more than 1,000 jobs" in the two towns.
Drop Site noted that the billionaire founder and CEO of Apollo, Marc Rowan, has contributed $50,000 so far to a super political action committee backing Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), a strong AI supporter. The super PAC, Pine Tree Results, recently began running attack ads against Mills' progressive opponent in the Democratic primary, political newcomer and combat veteran Graham Platner, who supported the moratorium.
Platner told NBC News after Mills announced her veto that his "biggest problem with data centers and AI" is not the technology itself, but with who benefits and who is harmed by the manner in which it is rolled out.
"In every moment in human history where a new, transformative technology arises that increases productivity, when it’s left in the hands of corporate power, it is always used to disenfranchise people," Platner warned. "It is always used to, frankly, impact workers negatively.”
Along with the project proposed for Jay, a Minnesota-based company called LiquidCool Solutions has been proposed in Limestone, with the center expected to use up to 26 megawatts of power—the equivalent amount of energy used by more than 20,000 Maine households.
Texas-based multiFUELS has also proposed an integrated energy center including a data center in Sanford in southern Maine. A lawyer representing the company, Anthony Buxton, told Maine Morning Star last week that the project would be in the 100-200 megawatt range.
"A moratorium would be a pretty clear signal they weren’t welcome here,” said Buxton, who, according to Federal Election Commission records, donated just over $2,000 to Mills' Senate campaign late last year.
Walsh told Common Dreams that "when a corporate-funded group like Americans for Prosperity is cheering a veto that benefits an energy- and water-intensive industry like data centers, and that decision comes after financial support from interests tied to a proposed project, it raises serious flags for the public."
Berry was unsurprised that the Trump-aligned group supported Mills' veto.
"Sadly, corporate multinationals tend to call the shots in the Mills administration," Berry told Common Dreams. "This is why she vetoed multiple pro-labor bills, tribal sovereignty, and [publicly owned utility] Pine Tree Power, among other key bills. And all of these vetoes have been sustained by support not from her own party, but from legislative Republicans."
Berry expressed hope that following the Legislature's failure to override Mills' veto, communities across Maine will take action, as other towns have across the country, to ensure they have a say in whether data centers operate there. He also said he hopes voters back candidates for office who who supported the moratorium.
"My expectation is that the conversation will turn to local action and also to the election," said Berry. "It is a big election year. We will choose the next governor. We'll choose the next US senator... And I expect that energy affordability in general, and data centers, as well will be very front of mind."
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘Most Convoluted Bullshit I Ever Heard’: Dem Lawmaker Torches Hegseth for Boat Strike Rationale
"With each of these extrajudicial killings, the administration is pirating American values."
Apr 29, 2026
Rep. Bill Keating on Wednesday tore into Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's justifications for US strikes against alleged drug trafficking boats that many legal experts and humans rights organizations consider acts of murder.
During a hearing before the US House Armed Services Committee, Keating (D-Mass.) accused Hegseth of overseeing a lawless killing spree that is damaging the US military's reputation throughout the world.
"With each of these extrajudicial killings, the administration is pirating American values," the Massachusetts Democrat said. "We will continue to investigate this. We will. It'll come forward in the future."
Rep. Bill Keating on Hegseth's justification for the military's extrajudicial killings: "I found no justification. We were given classified information on the second strike. I can't discuss it, but I must tell you, it is the most convoluted bullshit I have ever heard in my life." pic.twitter.com/I8gvGaSMcj
— The Bulwark (@BulwarkOnline) April 29, 2026
Keating then said that, after receiving classified briefings on the administration's boat bombings, he found "no justification" for them whatsoever.
"We were given classified information on the second [boat] strike," Keating said. "I can't discuss it, but I must tell you, it's the most convoluted bullshit I ever heard in my life. This should be public. This is our honor. This is what makes America a difference maker."
Hegseth responded by accusing Keating of leveling "an incredible array of false accusations."
The boat strikes, which have been carried out by US Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) since September, have so far killed at least 185 people. The Trump administration has not publicly released any evidence showing the targeted vessels were carrying drugs.
Before the Pentagon under Hegseth's leadership began conducting the lethal boat strikes last year, drug trafficking in international waters was treated as a criminal offense, with law enforcement agencies and the US Coast Guard intercepting boats suspected of carrying drugs and arresting suspects.
Trump’s bombings of boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific have been called “extrajudicial killings” by advocacy groups including Amnesty International.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


