Net neutrality is the principle that all internet traffic should be treated equally by service providers. When the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rolled back these protections in 2017, it opened the door for internet service providers (ISPs) to prioritize some content over others. For political campaigns, this raises the possibility of a digital divide—where well-funded campaigns gain a speed and visibility advantage, while grassroots candidates risk being left behind.
The majority of Americans now consume political news and content online. Research from thePew Research Center shows that 86% of U.S. adults get their news digitally, making online accessibility essential. Without net neutrality, ISPs could legally throttle websites or social media platforms that fail to pay for premium delivery. For campaigns relying on live-streamed rallies or high-quality video ads, even a slight delay could mean voters turning away before the message lands.
Online fundraising has become the backbone of modern campaigns. Candidates depend on quick, reliable access to donation portals to keep momentum strong. Without net neutrality, smaller campaigns could face barriers if ISPs decide to prioritize certain platforms or payment processors over others. This creates an uneven playing field where those with the largest budgets gain a significant edge, leaving challengers struggling to connect with supporters and grow their donor base.
Beyond the logistical challenges, the absence of net neutrality raises serious concerns about free speech. When ISPs act as gatekeepers, they gain the power to determine which political voices reach voters most effectively. That undermines the principle of equal access to information and risks leaving voters with a filtered version of the political landscape. For conservatives, this issue cuts to the heart of the First Amendment. While some argue that increased regulation is not the answer, others point out that unchecked ISP control could allow major telecoms and big tech firms to sideline conservative perspectives under the guise of prioritization.
Net neutrality is not simply a debate over internet speeds—it is about whether all campaigns, regardless of budget, will have a fair chance to compete in the digital arena. In an environment where every message, donation, and second of engagement shapes voter perception, ensuring equal online access is essential for maintaining a level playing field. Without it, the risk of a two-tiered internet threatens not only campaign fairness but also the broader principles of open political discourse.