Andrea Levere: Why far-right philanthropy keeps winning
By Andrea Levere
In early 2026, news broke that California billionaires were planning to launch a $500 million fund to reshape the state’s politics, pushing back against popular initiatives like a proposed billionaire tax. What’s most notable about this proposed fund is not its size, but its design. Supported by its own investment returns, the fund is not tied to a particular campaign, but instead will operate in perpetuity, providing the ultrawealthy with a year-round, consistent presence in California politics.
This endowment-like approach understands something essential about building power: Effecting true political change requires consistent, patient work, rather than reactive campaigns that ebb and flow with election cycles. The complicated infrastructure of political advocacy cannot be constructed overnight.
Far-right and anti-democracy philanthropists have intuitively understood this fact for decades, providing multi-year, unrestricted support to build institutions that can weather political cycles and pursue long-term change. Meanwhile, pro-democracy funders – committed to core American values like freedom of speech, equal treatment under the law, and the right to vote – are more likely to offer short-term, restricted support for specific projects and predetermined outcomes.
In short, far-right philanthropists are giving with more abundance, trust, and patience – and this structural advantage is quietly reshaping American democracy.
Consider two additional examples: In 2023, the Heritage Foundation (architect of Project 2025) received $25 million over five years from a family that has been supporting the organization for nearly half a century. Edward Blum, the conservative activist who successfully challenged affirmative action, has described receiving grants from foundations and donor-advised funds (DAFs) “without any kind of a contractual agreement.“
This type of long-term, unrestricted funding that leaves nonprofits with abundant cash on hand – known as enterprise capital – is precisely what is needed to maintain the infrastructure necessary for effective advocacy and narrative change. Enterprise capital enables advocacy organizations to make strategic hires, invest in technology, and do the patient, consistent work of building political movements. Perhaps most importantly, this trust-based funding approach gives advocates on the ground the ability to shape strategies as they see fit, rather than being forced to align with prescriptive ideas from donors.
The far right has used enterprise capital to build a powerful ecosystem of think tanks, astroturf groups, legal networks, and media platforms that help them win even when their positions are unpopular. This approach helps explain seemingly paradoxical outcomes in American politics. “Progressive” positions often command majority public support on issues like raising the minimum wage, health care access, and abortion, yet conservative movements have achieved disproportionate political influence.
Organizations advocating for pro-democracy and social justice issues are nearly 30% less likely to receive flexible funding compared to those who are anti-democracy, such as election deniers and anti-voting rights groups, and more than twice as likely to receive solely project-based support. Short-term funding traps advocacy groups in the nonprofit starvation cycle, forcing them to do more with less and divert precious resources to prioritize constant fundraising over mission-critical work.
The consequences of short-term, restricted funding have played out time and again for pro-democracy organizations working on voting rights and other critical issues. For instance, Black Voters Matter helped turn out millions of voters to win the 2020 election – but reported that “resources dwindled and investment dried up” heading into the 2024 cycle, with donors failing to recognize the importance of year-round funding to build trust with voters. The Carnegie Corporation of New York reported that one of its grantees working on voting issues saw a 40% drop in funding in 2021 compared to 2020, despite the fact that assaults on voting rights do not neatly coincide with election years.
Without consistent funding, these groups must operate with bare bones resources in offseasons and attempt to rapidly scale during campaigns. While pro-democracy organizations scramble to regroup and switch gears to serve funders’ latest interests, far-right groups are afforded the luxury of staying the course – focusing on the consistent, year-round work that changes minds and wins political battles.
The good news is that some pro-democracy funders are already demonstrating a better approach. Democracy Fund, for example, should be lauded for its commitment to significantly increase the proportion of its grants that are larger, multi-year, and unrestricted. Through efforts like 2024’s All by April campaign, the foundation is working to shift funder behaviors away from “boom and bust” giving, encouraging earlier and more long-term funding to nonprofits working in the election space.
That said, we will need to see a far more sweeping change across the philanthropic sector for pro-democracy organizations to dig out of the hole left by past funding deficits. Building robust institutions requires the kind of financial foundation that only enterprise capital can provide.
So for any funders who are concerned about the future of America, the path forward is clear: Embrace enterprise capital – unrestricted, multi-year funding that strengthens nonprofits’ balance sheets. Philanthropy has created the world we live in today. We must fund differently if we wish to create a better tomorrow.
Andrea Levere is CEO of Capitalize Good, a social enterprise working to disrupt philanthropy by expanding access to “Enterprise Capital” – unrestricted, multi-year funding that strengthens nonprofits’ financial resilience and social impact.
