Something curious happened within individual giving circles this election cycle. As months turned to weeks, and weeks became days before the U.S. midterm elections, individual donors gravitated from asking, “How can I elect a particular candidate?” to “How can I support the voters, institutions, and values that safeguard democracy?” This change did not happen in isolation. January 6th revelations, Supreme Court minority rule and state-level contests for the soul of the nation converged to inspire more deliberate systems change thinking — the kind of thinking that just might save democracy.
Philanthropy has historically taken a disjointed approach to protecting democracy. In addition to inconsistent cycles of election-specific support, donors have been hesitant to rely on the lived experience of political practitioners, impacted communities, and global partners. Because of both power dynamics and misunderstanding within philanthropy, donors too often eschew the insights of the front-line practitioners who best understand democracy’s machinery.
It doesn’t have to be this way, however, and the 2022 midterm elections set the stage for family philanthropy and individual donors to play an outsized role in safeguarding democracy, a role grounded in smaller philanthropy’s inherent ability to take risks, demonstrate proof of concept, and create impact far greater than dollar amounts would suggest. Building on the momentum gained in November, individual donors can lead the greater philanthropic sector toward funding that will rekindle democratic commitments, resource movements, and hold institutions accountable.
Crisis averted, but much work lies ahead
This November, in both the U.S. and abroad, high-profile political contests produced almost audible exhalations of relief within pro-democracy circles. In the weeks following these fiery contests, pundits and practitioners began analyzing trends and near misses worth greater examination. Their analyses provide both a time-limited snapshot of the health of our democracy and a strategic roadmap for its safekeeping.
In the U.S., candidates heralded as 2020 election deniers and tied to the political violence of January 6 faced consequences at the ballot box, albeit in limited instances. In highly contested races, this reckoning made a difference. This suggests that congressional hearings, unbiased media coverage, and other accountability efforts impacted voters in swing districts. Where there was little to no impact, however, was in noncompetitive contests, legislatively manipulated to protect incumbents, and largely homogenous in voter composition.
The limited reach of accountability mechanisms under these specific conditions demonstrates the startling effectiveness of systems designed specifically to thwart democracy — in this instance, news deserts, gerrymandered districts and minority-rule-promoting institutions.
This revelation, in turn, reinforces the importance of deploying longer-term, systemic, and multidimensional approaches to safeguarding democracy. At its most basic, that means looking beyond the traditional big philanthropy boom-and-bust cycle of sporadic and election-tied funding.
Smaller donors can lead the way
While incredibly proficient at uplifting democratic values and broadcasting their commitment to protecting democratic systems, larger and more bureaucratic philanthropic institutions are more often than not five to 10 years behind smaller and nimbler family foundations and individual donors.
Because they can be less restricted by formal governance, large staffs and headline-capturing dollar amounts, (relatively) smaller donors are often more risk-tolerant and innovative. This means the work of these organizations and individuals often provides proof of concept for the big philanthropy program officers who must navigate institutional hierarchy and competing endowment demands to get riskier, lesser known, or longer-term investments funded.
We have time now to take stock of the future warning signs projected by recent elections and mobilize philanthropy to take a leadership role. Individual and smaller institutional donors can impact the trajectory of philanthropy as a whole through the causes they support, theories of change they embrace, and lived experiences they uplift.
We need the philanthropic sector to then follow small philanthropy’s lead and invest strategically and with longer timelines to resource government accountability mechanisms and civic education to restore faith in our democratic institutions and empower our citizenry to keep authoritarian tendencies in check. Even modest investments in oversight and investigations training, subsidizing the civil service pipeline with fellowships, and other opportunities that promote a political workforce that is more representative of the population it has been trusted to govern will make a difference.
And we must address the news deserts and misinformation campaigns that undermine accountability and promote polarization. Modest investments in rural media or resourcing underserved populations through social business incubators will move the needle.
This moment is an opportunity for individual donors to influence institutional philanthropy, leverage their wealth to increase collaboration, and use their power, influence and position to advocate for democracy’s future. Without coordinated intervention, beyond what big philanthropy alone can manage, democracy will be at risk of further decline. The future is quite literally in the hands of the many — in philanthropy and civil society — as it should be in a thriving democracy.
Leslie Gross is The Philanthropy Workshop’s Managing Director, Americas East.