Nonpartisan Primaries Reduce the Influence of Wealthy Donors

Political corruption, apparently, is in the eye of the beholder. Contrary to the assertions of at least one Colorado politician, new research suggests that establishing open nonpartisan primaries in Colorado (and other states) will significantly reduce the ability of wealthy donors and ideological Super PACs to influence – or “corrupt” – our elections.

Nonpartisan primaries – might they thwart wealthy donors?

Recently, Colorado State Rep. Emily Sirota (D) falsely claimed that nonpartisan primaries are yet another avenue through which the wealthy can corrupt American politics. Sirota made this claim to defend her 11^th-hour effort to delay implementation of nonpartisan primaries in Colorado, should they be approved by the voters in November.

My research finds the opposite: Nonpartisan primaries significantly reduce the influence of wealthy donors in elections.

In a nonpartisan primary, all candidates, regardless of party, compete against each other on one unified ballot, and all eligible voters can participate. At the moment, the vast majority of states use partisan primaries, where Republicans and Democrats hold separate elections to determine their party’s nominee for the general election. These low-turnout affairs tend to be dominated by the most engaged partisan voters, and it helps explain why, year after year, most general election voters are disappointed by the choices on their ballot.

Since nonpartisan primaries include candidates from all parties, and many voters are entrenched in their partisan loyalties, fewer voters are susceptible to changing their votes based on persuasion efforts funded by wealthy donors. In these more competitive and more dynamic systems, unrepresentative ideological PACs are less likely to change election outcomes through an infusion of cash.

Current status of nonpartisan primaries

Four states (Alaska, California, Louisiana, and Washington) have done away with partisan primaries and use nonpartisan primaries for both state and federal elections. Nebraska uses a version of this system for its state legislature. This November, citizen-led ballot initiatives in Arizona, Idaho, Nevada, and South Dakota will give voters the opportunity to reform their primary system, while similar initiatives are pending qualification in another two states – Colorado and Montana.

Research by me and others suggests that nonpartisan primaries reduce polarization and improve the quality of governance in the states that have them. But as nonpartisan primaries have gained traction as a solution to government gridlock and dysfunction, Rep. Sirota and some Colorado party leaders have resorted to talking about “billionaires” and other false attacks.

It’s true that there are wealthy donors that support nonpartisan primaries, but that’s hardly evidence that these reforms will amplify the influence of the rich in American politics.

In research with Carlo Macomber of the Unite America Institute, we take these arguments head-on – and disprove their claims. Using data from the Federal Election Commission (FEC), we analyze all campaign contributions from Political Action Committees (PACs) and independent expenditures from Super PACs.

Our research finds that ideological PACs like Club for Growth Action on the right and Protect our Future on the left, bankrolled by millionaires, have much less influence in states with nonpartisan primaries. In fact, nonpartisan primaries curb the power of ideological PACs by about two-thirds relative to partisan primaries.

Jungle primaries appeal to the entire electorate

Why is this the case? Under the status quo that is partisan primary elections, wealthy donors only need to influence a relatively small number of voters to sway the outcome. In 2022, just 8% of voters elected 83% of the U.S. House of Representatives in primaries. In Colorado’s 2024 congressional primaries, Lauren Boebert effectively won her House seat in an election where just 21% of eligible voters participated. Purely by the numbers, it’s “cheaper” to influence those 8% or 21% of voters rather than a more competitive general election in which more voters participate.

By contrast, nonpartisan primaries increase turnout because all eligible voters can participate, and voters are empowered to express their true preferences on the ballot. Because a higher proportion of general elections are competitive in nonpartisan primary systems, there’s also an increase in voters casting meaningful votes.

So when you hear the party establishments arguing that nonpartisan primaries benefit the wealthy, know that the opposite is actually true. Not only does my research show that they reduce polarization, increase competition, and increase the share of voters casting meaningful votes, but they are also a bulwark against big money.

This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.