The movement to strengthen American democracy is not failing because its enemies are too powerful. It is struggling because its friends are too numerous, according to a Yale leadership expert who warns that a proliferation of pro‑democracy groups is siphoning funds, confusing donors, and undermining the very cause they seek to advance.

Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, who teaches leadership at Yale and is co‑author of the New York Times best‑selling book Trump’s Ten Commandments, argues in a TIME opinion piece that the civic effort is being strangled by overcrowding. He draws on decades of experience convening rival organizations—from cancer charities to corporate coalitions—to warn that the same pathology now threatens the fight for democratic governance.

“America has witnessed a proliferation of voting rights groups with sound justification and demonstrable results, but there comes a point when there may be too much of a good thing,” Sonnenfeld writes. “Worse still, a kaleidoscope of pro‑democracy advocacy groups can end up siphoning funds in diffuse directions and confusing the very constituents they seek to inspire.”

Sonnenfeld cites striking figures: the United States has roughly 180 overlapping voting rights advocacy groups, 5,000 cancer control organizations, 17,145 civil rights and social justice organizations, roughly 30,000 groups addressing global hunger, and 33,000 environmental activist organizations. In the pro‑democracy space specifically, his preliminary count identified at least 387 organizations operating at the national level, with more than 1,200 additional groups at the state level. Some coalitions claim over 700 member groups, and at least 100 of these organizations contain the same three words—Democracy, Vote, or Justice—in their titles. Over half of all these groups are less than a decade old.

“Many of these organizations are virtuous, tapping different constituencies, and forming alliances to reinforce common interests,” he acknowledges. “But they also drain attention and resources from the most prominent and salient causes, while adding significant duplicative overheads—swelling payrolls, internally devoted expenses.”

Sonnenfeld describes a landscape where hundreds of proliferating nonprofits—focused on election integrity and democratic governance, largely sharing the same mission and drawing from the same donors—are crowding an already bustling ecosystem. The result, he says, is that CEOs, donors, and legislators are overwhelmed and confused by wildly divergent messages, contradictory agendas, and a “cacophony of competing voices” that paralyzes meaningful action.

“Instead of having a thousand flowers bloom, a thousand weeds end up strangling them,” he writes.

Sonnenfeld notes that he is often asked to rally CEOs in support of efforts to strengthen election integrity. But these CEOs, he explains, are “hired hands and stewards of other people’s capital, with no desire to becoming embroiled in internecine squabbles between clashing advocates, parochial activists, and plain opportunists latching on to the moment.”

“They cannot help but ask: Where is everyone else? Where are the clergy who once locked arms and marched for progress? Where are the trade union leaders, the professional associations, the employee advocacy groups, the campus voices, the pension funds, and the institutional investors?”

The solution, Sonnenfeld argues, lies in strategic discipline. He points to the conservative movement as a model of coordination, citing the Heritage Foundation, the State Policy Network, and Americans for Prosperity, which centrally produce studies, advertisements, bus tours, rallies, and mass mailers alongside legislative outreach.

“The political center and left could learn valuable lessons from the disciplined coordination of financing, message control, and focus practiced by the various affiliates of major conservative think tanks,” he writes.

Sonnenfeld warns that fragmentation is not just an organizational problem—it is deeply personal. He observes that university applicants often believe creating a new advocacy group represents a greater act of citizenship than joining existing efforts.

“Self‑aggrandizing proliferation among advocates does not always translate into fortification of the intended cause,” he writes.

He also cites historical cautionary tales, noting that even within the militant activist group Students for Democratic Society, animus was frequently directed not at the establishment but at fellow antiwar advocates, with internal splinter groups fighting bitterly.

“The remedy is neither silence nor surrender, but strategic discipline,” Sonnenfeld concludes. “What is needed now is a deliberate consolidation of overlapping groups into effective coalitions, accompanied by rigorous tracking of donors and their commitments.”

He ends with a reminder from the Japanese poet Ryūnosuke Satoro: “Individually, we are one drop. Together, we are an ocean.”