A former candidate for the New York City Council explains the complications of campaign financing.
This summer, the New York Times reported that at least $1 billion in dark money — contributions raised by outside groups that don’t have to disclose who their donors are — will be spent in this midterm election cycle. I understand what money does to a campaign: Last summer, I lost my election for a seat on the New York City Council, in a race that attracted a lot of attention, energy and spending. Unlimited outside spending at all levels of government corrodes our political system, and as we near the end of yet another record-breaking campaign spending season, solutions could not be more urgent.
I’m a political scientist and democracy advocate. Like many Americans, I was moved to action by Trump’s promise to dismantle our democratic institutions. Running for office and knocking on doors gave me a chance to meet thousands of people and hear what they wanted fixed. That’s the fun part of democracy. But my race also presents a cautionary tale about the impact of money in democracy and the level of hate currently permeating our politics.
I ran for office participating in the City's public financing system, which is designed to magnify the influence of small donors. The program matches small donations (up to $175) with public funds, with each dollar raised triggering an $8 contribution from the City. About 90% of my donations were $175 or less and I did not take corporate PAC money. As for countless other candidates, small-donor public financing not only made it more accessible for me to run, but also allowed me to spend less of my time dialing for dollars, and more of my time speaking with constituents.
But this positive story of public election financing is complicated by the reality of outside money that does not directly go to campaigns. 2025 was a record year for outside spending in New York City elections, with a lot of money targeting the mayoral race and several City Council races, including my own. Since the 2010 Supreme Court Citizens United decision — which struck down limits on spending by non-profits, corporations, and other outside groups, ruling that limits would violate the First Amendment’s free speech clause — there is no longer any cap on spending by outside groups. In my council race, there was over $400,000 worth of independent expenditure spending in support of my campaign, and about $200,000 in independent expenditures in support of my opponent. In its post-election report, the City’s Campaign Finance Board highlighted my race as an example of high outside spending in the 2025 cycle.
I lost despite the large amounts spent in favor of my candidacy. The digital ads and mailers paid for by outside groups certainly boosted my name recognition and visibility as a first-time candidate. On the other hand, many voters were angry with all the outside spending. There is a legal bar on coordination between candidates and outside groups on any campaign ads or mailers. But even though the law requires small “paid for by” disclaimers on materials and digital ads in order to identify which are paid for by outside groups, many voters missed those disclaimers and ascribed the mailers and ads to the campaigns themselves rather than outside groups. So I was no longer in control of how voters experienced messaging about my goals or values.
To make matters worse, a lot of outside money is spent on negative attack ads. In the 2016 election cycle, one study by the Wesleyan Media Project found that over 50% of presidential ads were negative. And in the 2024 presidential election, the Wesleyan Media Project found that in the period after Biden dropped out, over 95% of pro-Trump ads were “pure attack, meaning they focused entirely on attacking Kamala Harris.” In one 2023 race for the Virginia state legislature, candidates were accused of everything from being “domestic abuser[s]" to "consorting with 'militias and hate groups'" (both false or misleading claims). Similar examples abound.
Outside groups spent tens of millions of dollars in the New York City mayoral election in 2025, including $17.1 million on negative ads. One outside super PAC supporting Andrew Cuomo digitally altered a photo of Zohran Mamdani to make his beard look darker and longer, one of many racist attack ads.
In my race, I faced a lot of negative attack ads. Some were comically outrageous, like a mailer accusing me of pretending to be a Democrat while secretly being a MAGA Republican (calling me “MAGA MAYA”). Some ads featured antisemitic tropes, like one ad that portrayed me as a bag of money. Strategists and scholars say that negative attack ads are powerful because they linger with voters longer than positive ones. Negativity may help individual candidates win an election, but it is hazardous to the long-term health of our political process, which depends on compromise and finding common ground. Good governance requires trust and empathy.
Fifty million dollars were spent on the June 2026 New York Congressional primaries, with more money funneling in ahead of the general elections this November. As cycle after cycle breaks fundraising records, it is clear that we need to place more guardrails on election spending.
Polling shows that the vast majority of voters support ending Citizens United and limiting outside spending in elections. Overturning Citizens United would require action either from the Supreme Court (which realistically might mean waiting for a different Supreme Court) or from Congress, which could propose a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. That would take many years, and it would have to be crafted in a way that doesn’t conflict with the Constitution’s First Amendment allowing freedom of speech and of the press. And in addition to federal policy, New York City should also make sure key oversight agencies are actually fully funded and equipped to enforce current disclosure requirements and other ethics rules.
Running for office was a tremendous joy and privilege. In a healthy democracy, sometimes you win and sometimes you lose elections. But there is something larger at stake here than any one election cycle. Democracy depends on the ability to engage across difference, and on the ability of citizens to make their voices heard. When money dilutes the voices of voters and candidates’ demonization of the other side poisons the political debate, the very foundations of our democracy are threatened. Winning the battle for the future of our democracy is more important than any election this cycle or next.
