US Election: Money in Politics — PACs and Super PACs

Improve the News Foundation -

Facts

  • ORIGINS: From 1867 to 1943, Congress gradually grew its campaign finance oversight, from regulating Navy yard worker donations, prohibiting corporate gifts to federal campaigns, and requiring disclosures of $100+ donations, to banning union donations. The union ban prompted the creation of Political Action Committees (PACs) in 1944, which allowed individual union members to donate after union treasuries were prohibited, leading to decades-long legislative and court battles.[1][2]
  • COURT CASES: By 2002, the debate centered around corporate donations, particularly for ads. By 2007, caps were imposed on individual contributions to candidates, and corporations were banned from donating to candidate-based ads. 2010 brought major changes to the system, largely from the Supreme Court decision that allowed unlimited corporate and labor group donations, arguing that donations were akin to free speech. A lower court made a similar determination.[3][1][4]
  • PACs: Traditional PACs can donate $5K to a candidate per election and $15K annually to national party committees; individuals, other PACs, and corporations can donate $5K to a PAC annually. Unlike Super PACs, traditional PACs can fund a specific candidate's campaign activities, including voter engagement programs, ads, and campaign research. In 2022, 32% of the $5.89B spent on all PACs was from traditional PACs.[5]
  • SUPER PACs/HYBRID PACs: Super PACs, which made up 18% of PAC money in 2022, can raise and spend unlimited money on federal campaign issues as long as they don't endorse a specific candidate. Hybrid PACs are groups with both traditional and Super PAC components. All PACs must disclose all money received and the identities of those who donate over $200. However, 'dark money' donors can evade such rules by donating to nonprofit groups that then transfer the funds.[2][5]
  • INFLUENTIAL SUPER PACs, NONPROFITS IN 2024: The largest PACs by funds raised are ActBlue (Democrat) with $1.3B and WinRed (Republican) with $920M. The top industry PACs include American Crystal Sugar (Democrat-leaning) and the American Bankers Association (Republican-leaning). On foreign policy, the influential American Israel Public Affairs Committee ($24.5M) has donated 82.5% to Democrats and 17% to Republicans this cycle.[6][7][8]
  • PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS: A record amount of 'dark money' reportedly entering US elections has impacted voter perceptions across party lines. According to Pew Research, 80% of American adults — including 83% Republican/GOP-leaning and 80% Democrat/Democrat-leaning — believe large donations have too much influence over Congress. 72% of Americans think political money should have more limits, including 71% of Republicans and 76% of Democrats.[9][10]

Sources: [1]Common Cause, [2]Opensecrets (a), [3]Brennan Center for Justice, [4]FEC.gov, [5]USAFacts, [6]Opensecrets (b), [7]PBS NewsHour, [8]Opensecrets (c), [9]Opensecrets (d) and [10]Pew Research Center.

Narratives

  • Republican narrative, as provided by Wsj. Trump's 2016 victory turned the GOP into a working-class party. By 2022, Republicans relied mostly on small donations from average Americans, allowing them to investigate the woke, anti-worker corporate culture of the world's most powerful banks and tech companies. While corporate donors leverage liberal cultural trends to sway young working voters, Republicans support higher wages, stricter safety regulations, and free speech protections, stepping in to help working-class Americans neglected by Democrats and their corporate allies.
  • Democratic narrative, as provided by ProPublica. The GOP still has plenty of corporate donors and even gained new ones during the Trump administration. These donors, from real estate tycoons to casino magnates, went from spending thousands pre-Trump to tens of millions post-Trump. What's most dangerous is that many of them began supporting Trump due to his conspiracy theories about COVID and stolen elections. Others, like oil companies, donate to protect their business interests. Trump's Republican Party isn't less corrupt, it has simply put on a new mask.
  • Establishment-critical narrative, as provided by Newsweek. Despite the concerns of polarization in America, a staggering number of voters — both right and left — agree that there's far too much money in politics. The Justice Department has even prosecuted several scandals involving politicians and Super PACs. The clearest path forward is to ban these types of donations. Common sense tells us money doesn't equal speech; it simply increases the risk of the wealthy buying the government. Both parties and their billionaire donors should be stripped of their ability to control the American people.
  • Pro-establishment narrative, as provided by Institute For Free Speech. Contrary to expectations, the predicted consequences of Citizens United haven't materialized. After the 2010 ruling, Americans began electing presidents unconnected to the big political machine, from re-electing the first Black president to electing a political outsider. The decision also enabled large donors to back anti-establishment freshmen congressional candidates, including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez defeating incumbent Joe Crowley. Similarly, Trump was able to defeat Jeb Bush and his team of Super PACs and Washington elites.