Thanks for writing this, Jeff!
If anyone is interested in receiving political donation recommendations, feel free to fill out this form!
The way the US political system, and donations specifically, works, is not well understood. https://congressionalresearch.org/Citations.html
Basically, when you are a politician, you may roll campaign funds over to your next campaign. When you stop being a politician you may dispose of your campaign funds in one of four ways. 1) pay off loans, including loans you made to the campaign 2) donate to charity, including your charity 3) refund to donors (lol) 4) donate to a political action committee (including one you control, subject to donation limits for pacs controlled by politicians). In 4, PACs controlled by private citizens (you) have very few limits on how the money is used.
Opensecrets.org publishes (from public filings candidates make, by law) who got what and how it was spent. This is basically a list of receipts. Any pol can see who paid, because committee proposals and votes are recorded, any donor can verify that someone stayed bought.
So, if you want to be heard, go look up a politician on open secrets, look at the delta between that pol and his opponent in his last race. Divide that delta by 2500. Count your friends who will give 2500.
Now have a lobbyist figure out how to word the following so it isn't a threat or bribe (there are specific ways to say this that are legal, my framing might not be one of them).
"I noticed your last race was kind of close, you're a great guy and I'd hate to see you lose. I have x people with me willing to put y dollars into your next race, here's $2500 from me as a gesture of good faith. I want you to propose/cosponsor this bill I wrote / vote for this bill someone I paid has proposed"
I'm doubtful that this is how it works. I think lobbying is much more about having relationships than your approach suggests.
Otherwise, what evidence do you have for things working the way you propose?
The website explains it better than I do, I was skeptical too. The professional lobbyists have those relationships, but they are absolutely for sale; going in on your own carries risk, but if you have the money and the plan, hiring a firm isn't that big of a hurdle.
I live in DC, I'm going off conversations I've had with members of congress, a few chiefs of staff, and people at various levels at lobbying firms. I assume it doesn't work like this in other places.
The system has set incentives in a certain way. Some pols, particularly ones who are in extremely safe seats, sometimes vote their conscience and it often costs them a great deal. Some pols think it's a problem, I did hear one member of the house say "yeah it works like that--you know they used to let them just keep the money, and I think if we went back to that, it would give some of these people an incentive to get out."
Five years ago I read a post on the EA Forum arguing that "election campaign contributions might be a way in which you can have a substantial impact as a small donor". It struck me as weird but plausible: a combination that you see a lot of on the Forum.
A few months later I read another post, a case for Carrick Flynn in particular. It made a lot of sense, but while I don't remember my specific reservations I do remember not being convinced initially. After a lot of talking with Julia and others, however, this campaign did seem like a really promising opportunity. Six days later we made the donation:
Flynn lost, and not for lack of funding. People took away a range of lessons (see the comments too!) from the attempt; personally my largest was that it's really important to assess early on whether the candidate is resonating with voters, and proxies like "previously elected to local office here" are super valuable.
The argument for individuals donating to support candidates still made sense to me, and I would still have been willing to do it for the right opportunity. For the next few years, however, I didn't come across any that were sufficiently compelling. And with a lot of other things going on in my life I didn't seek these out.
In Fall 2025 friends started discussing political donations more, and I met Eric Neyman who was putting together a working group to identify and rank political donation opportunities from the perspective of "making the long-term future go well." I read his analysis of cost-effectiveness of donating to Alex Bores' campaign, talked to friends, and talked with Bores himself briefly when I was in NYC for EAG. Not wanting to repeat earlier mistakes, I was glad to see he's already been evaluated by the electorate in becoming a state legislator. Which is not to say he'll definitely win: it's a competitive field and he's at 42% on Manifold. Still, I decided to donate, and later donated to several other people that some combination of Neyman's group, the Secure AI Project, and politics-focused EAs recommended. They've mostly been Democrats so far, but party isn't my goal: it's about what I expect the candidates will do if elected.
After continuing to think about this, I actually think I should make political donations my primary method of giving. The vast majority of charitable dollars legally can't go to candidates, and I don't expect this to change. Donors with a lot of money to distribute have the same lowish hard-dollar limits I have, and much of the remainder, including a lot of likely-forthcoming Anthropic employee funding, is in donor advised funds. This means my money is unusually well-suited to help fill what I see as one of the highest priority gaps.
This is not the full case (see Ozy, Lincoln, and Scott) but it's the part that took longest to click for me.
Overall I feel pretty mixed about this. On the one hand, for years I've wanted to apply my comparative advantage as an independent individual to make more impactful donations, and it's great to finally really be doing this. On the other, it's kind of depressing. It's a familiar feeling: when I moved from primarily funding global poverty to trying to reduce catastrophic risk I felt the same way: more distance from helping the world's poorest people in the present, when they would very clearly benefit a lot from my money. But I do think it's here my money will do the most good, and that's what drives me.