To defend democracy, funders must give beyond their comfort zones
Backing leaders whose policy views differ from your own may feel risky, but failing to do so is riskier.
By Benjamin Chou
Contributor
August 11, 2026 | Read Time: 5 minutes
- Many foundations hesitate to fund organizations led by people with different policy views, even when they share a deep commitment to democratic values.
- An analysis of 2024 tax filings found that the 15 largest democracy grant makers give far more to groups with similar ideological leanings than to those engaged in cross-ideological work.
- Funders should audit their portfolios for grantees working across partisan lines and identify trusted local leaders who can guide cross-partisan democracy efforts.
Keep up with everything happening in The Commons by signing up for our monthly newsletter.
Our democracy is not in crisis because Americans have abandoned democratic values. So why does philanthropy fund like they have?
Fully 83 percent of Democrats and 79 percent of Republicans say they oppose violations of democratic norms, according to Dartmouth’s Polarization Research Lab. And yet, as a grant maker in the field, I’ve come to believe that philanthropy has largely failed to fund work that activates this pro-democracy majority.
To confirm my suspicions, I analyzed the 2024 990 tax forms of the 15 largest 501(c)(3) democracy grant makers to determine the funding gap between two essential but distinct strategies: “base building,” which gives communities the resources and civic infrastructure to participate fully in democracy, and what I call “majority activation,” which ensures Americans regardless of political party are committed to the fundamentals of democracy. Majority activation differs from base building in that it explicitly works across ideological lines to reinforce the democratic values already shared by the vast majority of Americans.
Both matter, but they have different goals. Base building deepens civic participation within ideologically similar communities while majority activation broadens the shared commitment to democratic norms across ideologically diverse communities.
While critical, base building alone cannot protect democracy. Majority activation, by contrast, creates conditions in which breaking democratic norms, such as supporting political violence, election denialism, corruption, and scapegoating communities, becomes unacceptable.
My analysis revealed that the 15 large funders invested approximately $359 million in base building, compared with approximately $84 million in majority activation. And this estimated four-to-one gap doesn’t even account for 501(c)(4) spending, campaign expenditures, or individual donations, all of which add enormous resources to base mobilization, electoral organizing, and partisan activity. (Note that my analysis required categorizing grants according to their purpose, so these numbers should be read as informed estimates rather than exact counts.)
By contrast, the only source of capital for nonpartisan, cross-ideological majority activation work is (c)(3) philanthropy, and I believe the funding levels today are a fraction of what they need to be.
Overcoming discomfort
This funding gap isn’t merely a matter of habit. It’s a symptom of something more uncomfortable in philanthropy. Many people in the field are reluctant to fund organizations that are led by or work with people who hold different policy views, even if they share a deep commitment to democratic values. I’ve seen this firsthand through my majority activation work with the Packard Foundation’s Democracy, Rights, and Governance Initiative.
Even grant makers who are open to this work often don’t know whom to fund or how to do it without compromising their reputation and relationships. The result is a structural gap in how philanthropy defends democracy, one that is driven as much by discomfort and unfamiliarity as by strategy.
The first step toward changing these funding patterns is understanding what it will take to effectively activate the pro-democracy majority, including who is in the best position to lead this work. Most often the answer is trusted local leaders with the moral and relational credibility to demonstrate the value of pluralistic approaches in tackling community challenges.
In practice, this might look like pastors teaching about peacemaking and ethics in a polarized age or business owners and universities partnering with election officials to host polling sites at their offices or campuses. It could involve community leaders convening neighbors to solve a shared challenge — a shuttered plant, disaster recovery, a disappearing grocery store — and building the habits of civic problem-solving that outlast the immediate crisis. Or it might include veterans volunteering as poll workers and election observers, lending credibility to institutions their neighbors may distrust.
These actions normalize pro-democracy behavior in everyday life, creating a healthy civic culture. It’s much harder for politicians to break democratic norms when it means going against the culture in their communities.
The Packard Foundation has embraced this approach by supporting groups such as the One America Movement, which works with faith leaders who recognize the dangers of polarization. By connecting these leaders, often through retreats, and giving them the tools and institutional backing to become effective peacemakers, One American helps them reduce division and model democratic values within their local communities.
Frankly, the priorities and perspectives of many of these faith leaders may not always align with the Packard Foundation’s broader institutional goals. But to build resilience against attacks on democracy and activate shared pro-democracy values, funders must be willing to put those differences aside and move past their discomfort.
They also need to understand that this is risky work. Community leaders who challenge anti-democratic behavior can face backlash, isolation, and loss of standing. Funders can help by supporting leadership development, communications coaching, and peer convenings that help leaders feel less alone when they take pro-democracy stands that may anger their constituencies.
Common Ground USA, for example, supports local leaders across the ideological spectrum in Texas, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota to build trust and work together in their own communities to prevent and respond to political violence. If an incident, such as an assassination attempt, occurs, these leaders have already built the trust needed to coordinate and communicate responses that help de-escalate violence.
As noted in recent articles in the Chronicle, some democracy funders have started shifting to more cross-ideological work, and I hope others will join us. Your organization can begin by auditing its portfolio to determine whether you have grantees that intentionally work across partisan lines to strengthen democratic norms. If not, ask whether your foundation’s goals would be better served by supporting such efforts. Organizations like Philanthropy for Active Civic Engagement and the Democracy Funders Network are building cross-partisan funder communities where you can find partners, share practices, and learn from those doing this work.
By activating the majority of Americans who hold pro-democracy values, we can build a healthy civic culture that makes it far more difficult for politicians to violate democratic norms. That requires wholeheartedly backing the brave leaders advocating for democracy — regardless of where they fall on the ideological spectrum.
The Commons is financed in part with philanthropic support from the Arthur M. Blank Family Foundation, Einhorn Collaborative, and the Walton Family Foundation. None of our supporters have any control over or input into story selection, reporting, or editing, and they do not review articles before publication. See more about the Chronicle, the grants, how our foundation-supported journalism works, and our gift-acceptance policy.
