Featured Post from University of Massachusetts Amherst

Are Small-Dollar Political Donations Making American Politics More Divisive?

UMass Amherst political scientist Ray La Raja examines how small-dollar donations may be fueling political polarization.

Oct 20, 2026

2 min

Ray La Raja

Small-dollar political donations have long been celebrated as a way to reduce the influence of wealthy contributors and give ordinary Americans a greater voice in elections. But new research suggests that the growing influence of these donors may also be contributing to political polarization and rewarding candidates who generate attention rather than build consensus.


CaptionResizeWrap TextRemove

In an article published in The Atlantic, titled Small-Dollar Campaign Donors Are Hurting the Political System, journalist Idrees Kahloon examines how the explosion of grassroots political fundraising has changed American campaigns, drawing attention to research challenging the assumption that small donations necessarily produce healthier democratic outcomes.


CaptionResizeWrap TextRemove



Among the researchers examining this trend is Ray La Raja, professor of political science and co-director of the UMass Amherst Poll at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.


View his profile





La Raja is co-author, with Zachary Albert of Brandeis University, of the 2026 book Small Donors in US Politics: Myth and Reality, which examines who contributes to political campaigns, what motivates their donations and how their growing influence affects elections and political representation.


CaptionResizeWrap TextRemove


Their research finds that small-dollar donors are often more politically engaged, more partisan and more ideologically committed than the average voter. While these contributions can broaden participation in campaign financing, they can also encourage candidates to pursue national attention and emotionally charged fundraising appeals rather than focus on local concerns or legislative compromise.


The findings raise important questions about whether the growing influence of small donors is strengthening political representation or creating new incentives for polarization.


The issue is particularly relevant ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, as candidates and political parties compete for campaign contributions in an increasingly nationalized fundraising environment.


La Raja's work also examines the role of political parties in campaign finance and whether reforms designed to reduce the influence of large donors have produced unintended consequences.


With campaign fundraising, political polarization and democratic accountability increasingly connected, La Raja offers journalists a research-based perspective on one of the less understood forces shaping American elections.


If you're interested in speaking with Ray La Raja about campaign finance, small-dollar political donations, political polarization, election reform and the influence of money on American democracy, simply click on his profile to arrange an interview today.

Connect with:
Ray La Raja

Ray La Raja

Professor of Political Science / Co-Director of UMass Poll

Ray La Raja's research interests include political parties, interest groups, elections, campaign finance and political participation.

Public Policy and OrganizationsElections and PollingPolitical ScienceCampaign FinanceAmerican Politics
Powered by

You might also like...

Check out some other posts from University of Massachusetts Amherst

Does International Law Still Matter? UMass Amherst Expert Weighs In on Doha Debates featured image

2 min

Does International Law Still Matter? UMass Amherst Expert Weighs In on Doha Debates

As wars, geopolitical tensions and questions about international accountability challenge the global order, an important debate is emerging: Does international law still matter when powerful countries can choose to ignore it? That question was at the center of a recent episode of Doha Debates, which brought together international experts to examine the effectiveness, legitimacy and future of international law. Among the featured panelists was Charli Carpenter, Professor of Political Science at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, who offered a perspective on why international law remains important, even when its rules are violated. The discussion also featured Balakrishnan Rajagopal of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Victor Gao of the Center for China and Globalization and political philosopher Curtis Yarvin. Carpenter challenged the notion that violations of international law necessarily demonstrate its failure. She pointed to the international agreements that make everyday global cooperation possible, from aviation safety to diplomacy, and argued that international legal frameworks have helped establish expectations for how countries conduct themselves. Charli Carpenter is a scholar of international relations whose research examines international law, human security, global norms and the role of advocacy networks in shaping international policy. View her profile She also emphasized that violations can sometimes strengthen international norms by prompting other countries and institutions to reaffirm their importance. "And I think it is a common myth that if an actor breaks a rule that necessarily weakens the rule. Sometimes that can be an impetus for others to defend and reaffirm the rule. And it's often the case that rule breakers don't undermine rules, they undermine themselves and their social standing in a community." The debate explored the role of the United Nations, the Geneva Conventions, the International Criminal Court and the challenges of holding powerful countries accountable. Carpenter also discussed research into international treaties and public attitudes toward nuclear weapons, explaining how international agreements can influence expectations and behavior even when major powers are not parties to them. As global conflicts continue to test international institutions, the discussion offers a timely examination of whether the international legal system needs reform, stronger enforcement or renewed political commitment. Watch the full Doha Debates discussion on YouTube to hear Carpenter and her fellow panelists explore the future of international law and the consequences of weakening global institutions. If you're interested in speaking with Charli Carpenter about international law, global governance, international security, human rights and the future of international institutions, simply click on her profile to arrange an interview today.

Could a Supreme Court Power Play Backfire on Republicans? featured image

2 min

Could a Supreme Court Power Play Backfire on Republicans?

With November's midterm elections approaching, Republicans may face a consequential decision: whether to confirm another conservative Supreme Court justice before potentially losing control of the Senate. In a new piece published October 14 in The Conversation, Paul M. Collins Jr., professor of legal studies and political science at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, examines how such a move could reshape the Supreme Court and intensify political divisions over the judiciary. Collins explains that if Democrats win control of the Senate, a retirement by conservative Justices Clarence Thomas or Samuel Alito before the new Congress takes office in January could give President Donald Trump an opportunity to appoint a fourth Supreme Court justice. While Republicans could potentially secure another conservative appointment, Collins argues the political consequences could extend well beyond the immediate confirmation battle. As Collins writes in The Conversation: If Alito or Thomas announced their retirement after the midterms, Republicans would have enough time to confirm a successor. The Senate has four and a half work weeks scheduled between Election Day and Jan. 3. Justice Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed less than a month after her nomination, making the timeline tight but doable. His analysis draws parallels to the contentious Supreme Court confirmation battles of 2016 and 2020, when Republicans blocked Merrick Garland's nomination before subsequently confirming Amy Coney Barrett shortly before a presidential election. Collins suggests another controversial confirmation could further undermine public confidence in the Supreme Court and strengthen calls for judicial reform, including expanding the number of justices. The stakes are significant. With lifetime appointments shaping constitutional interpretation for decades, the outcome could influence not only the Court's ideological direction but also the future of judicial independence and the relationship between Congress and the judiciary. Paul M. Collins, Jr. is a professor of legal studies and political science at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. His research focuses on understanding bias and inequality in the legal system, the selection and work of judges and social movement litigation. View his profile  An established authority on Supreme Court nominations, Collins has researched judicial appointments, political influences on the courts and the confirmation process. He is co-author of Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings and Constitutional Change and Supreme Bias: Gender and Race in U.S. Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings. As the midterm elections approach, Collins can provide journalists with expert analysis of Supreme Court vacancies, Senate confirmation procedures, judicial politics and the potential long-term consequences of another contentious appointment. If you're interested in speaking with Paul M. Collins Jr. about Supreme Court nominations, judicial independence, Senate confirmation battles and the future of the U.S. judiciary, simply click on his profile to arrange an interview today.

Listen: Donald Trump Loathes the Courts. He’s Following the Autocrat Playbook to Sideline Them featured image

1 min

Listen: Donald Trump Loathes the Courts. He’s Following the Autocrat Playbook to Sideline Them

UMass Amherst Supreme Court expert Paul Collins explains why the courts are a vital check on presidential power and how pending cases could shape how much power Trump can accrue. In democratic systems, the courts are a vital check on a leader’s power. They have the ability to overturn laws and, in Donald Trump’s case, the executive orders he has relied on to achieve his goals. Since taking office, Trump has targeted the judiciary with a vengeance. He has attacked what he has called “radical left judges” and is accused of ignoring or evading court orders. The Supreme Court has already handed the Trump administration some key wins in his second term. But several cases now before the court will be pivotal in determining how much power Trump is able to accrue – and what he’ll be able to do with it. As Paul Collins, a Supreme Court expert from the University of Massachusetts Amherst, explains in episode 4 of The Making of an Autocrat: It’s all about presidential power. And that’s really significant because it’s going to enable the president to basically inject a level of politics into the federal bureaucracy that we frankly haven’t really seen before in the US. Listen to the interview with Collins at The Making of an Autocrat podcast, available at Spotify, Apple, or wherever you get your podcasts. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article here.

View all posts
Powered by