Defying widespread expectations of a Republican “red wave,” the 2022 elections saw a strong showing among Democrats, many of whom were bracing for a pointed midterm rebuke. Control of Congress remains up in the air as of this writing. But even if the GOP wins one or both houses, it’ll be by far slimmer margins than Republicans hoped, setting the stage for two years of intense partisan gridlock on Capitol Hill (as if we haven’t had enough of that).
For many in philanthropy, especially progressive funders or those otherwise funding causes under attack from right, these are bracing results. A strong showing for abortion rights, rejection of at least some far-right extremists, and high turnout among Democratic-leaning voters validated funders’ heightened attention in recent years to reproductive freedom, voting rights and civic engagement. This follows a tough two years in which anti-democratic sentiment spread like wildfire and a starkly conservative Supreme Court struck down the federal right to abortion care.
Still, any solace we’re taking from these results comes with a generous helping of uncertainty. The question of philanthropic reform, for instance, will likely remain undecided, whatever happens in Congress. Democracy will still be in dire straits as scores of new election deniers enter the halls of government. Progress on pressing philanthropic priorities like climate change, abortion rights and the social safety net will remain hard to come by at the federal level. And philanthropy still needs to confront the reality that the American public square is becoming more dysfunctional and more dangerous.
Here are five takeaways for philanthropy from a fraught, if somewhat encouraging, midterm cycle.
Democracy funders validated
Typically, a large portion of the electorate tends to skip over midterm contests. That pattern may not hold anymore. In both 2018 and now in 2022, voter turnout was way up from historical norms, a fact many pundits ascribe to heightened fear of the other side. Yet on its face, more voter engagement is pretty much the No. 1 goal of good-faith democracy giving, so it’s hard to see this trend as a net negative. And while money in politics continued to surge in this election, a lot of it went to good old-fashioned GOTV. We’ve also been seeing more funding initiatives for year-round grassroots power-building and civic engagement, seeking to subvert the boom-and-bust cycle of short-sighted election giving.
In addition, while election deniers and conspiracists did win races, including Ohio’s J.D. Vance and South Carolina’s Ted Budd, the midterms weren’t all that rosy for purveyors of the Big Lie. Far-right election deniers running for crucial secretary of state posts mostly fell flat, and in states like Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, voters rebuked Republican candidates who parroted Trump’s anti-democratic rhetoric.
That said, there’s still immense need for democracy philanthropy going forward. While some defeated candidates have bowed out gracefully, others are taking cues from the former president and refusing to concede, setting the stage for more ugly norm-shattering. Democracy funders must also continue stepping up their game in the underfunded South, where the Georgia Senate race appears headed for a tense December run-off and efforts continue to disenfranchise voters. Future democracy work that will need funding includes organizing against politicians who threaten democracy, but also any number of efforts to fight misinformation, rebuild local journalism, restore trust and stability in the democratic process, stand up to political violence, protect the right to vote, and more.
Abortion advocacy is paying off
Another major takeaway is that yes, abortion did matter in the end. Far from the niche culture war issue it’s often been made out to be, the question of abortion rights drove Democratic turnout, propelled several states to enshrine the right in their constitutions, and vied for voters’ attention with the supposedly all-encompassing issue of inflation.
Since the Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade, both small donors and institutional funders have kept the funding flowing to preserve access to abortion care in places where it’s threatened. These election results are a confirmation of just how popular the right to an abortion is among the American public, even in red states. Die-hard backers of abortion rights have been saying this all along, of course, and advocates have long been frustrated that so many mainstream funders have been so timid when it comes to the topic. Going forward, progressive funders — and others — would do well to pair funding for abortion access with advocacy money to continue making that case and hammer home just how much the high court’s opinion runs counter to the will of the public.
Prospects for philanthropy reform still limited
Let’s face it. If federal philanthropy reform legislation like the Accelerating Charitable Efforts (ACE) Act was already stuck in limbo with unified control of Congress and the White House, it’s unlikely to do any better in a divided government. Legislators will have their hands full duking it out over more headline-grabbing topics. Issues that matter to us philanthropy watchers, like DAF and foundation payout, will probably remain far from the front of the agenda.
The one caveat to that is the fact that some ascendent populist legislators, like J.D. Vance in Ohio, have voiced strong criticism of philanthropies they don’t like. It’s hard at the moment to separate that rhetoric from generalized denouncements of billionaires and “elites,” which is like bread and butter for populist politicians. Here at IP, we’ve long nursed a fear of populist anger fixating on philanthropy and prompting Congress to kneecap the sector — though that possibility is remote, for now. That said, the push for significant, sensible reform needs to continue.
The window closes for big progressive legislation
Even with control of the presidency and majorities in the House and the Senate, the Democrats failed to fully deliver on President Joe Biden’s wide-ranging Build Back Better agenda. After a grueling period of intra-party squabbling (ahem, Joe Manchin) and unified GOP opposition, some heavily pared-down bills eventually made it through the congressional wringer. But a new New Deal they are not.
If the Republicans gain control of one or both houses, as now seems possible, major federal legislation advancing liberal priorities will be off the table. Nonprofits serving at-risk people who benefited from effective policies like the expired Child Tax Credit won’t be able to count on a rehash over the next two years, at least from the federal government. In the states, however, prospects for progressive legislation have improved in some places.
Wanted: civic creativity
The results of Tuesday’s election leave us feeling cautiously hopeful about American democracy, which has been bruised but is still functioning. Nevertheless, these midterms bear the marks of a public square gone sour, awash in misinformation, conspiracy and threats of violence.
Case in point: Days before the election, the home of the speaker of the House was invaded by a radicalized extremist, and her 82-year-old husband brutalized — after which the country’s richest man, having just purchased its most politically potent social media platform, used it to broadcast a victim-blaming conspiracy theory about the attack. This isn’t normal.
Most philanthropic funders maintain that there’s little they can do about problems like political violence, election denialism and rescinded rights, since solutions lie in the supposedly untouchable realm of politics. While philanthropy is more cautious than it needs to be in that area, the thing is, funders don’t actually need to get political to help heal American politics.
Call it addressing the social determinants of civic health. Regardless of who they voted for, large numbers of Americans are clearly dissatisfied with their lot. Threats to our daily lives and our very bodies are accumulating, threats the political system seems ill-equipped to handle. As the self-described civil society sector, philanthropy needs to think more creatively about how it can take on more of the big problems plaguing Americans, with or without government.
Nothing’s guaranteed, but doing so may be one of the best options grantmakers have to “lower the temperature” and bring democracy back from the brink.