How Do Super PACs Influence Elections in 2025?

To understand American politics in 2025, you need to know how Super PACs (political action committees) influence elections. Along with traditional PACs, these outside groups pump huge amounts of money into campaigns at every level of the government. While money from PACs does help candidates run and win their elections, the way these groups operate shapes the health of our democracy, whose voices are heard, and what issues get attention.

Already in the 2025 election cycle, President Trump’s Super PAC, MAGA Inc., has stockpiled nearly $200 million to influence the 2026 midterm races. At the same time, Super PACs poured $46 million into New York City’s 2025 primary elections, only to see grassroots candidates win anyway. These examples highlight both the staggering influence of outside spending and the resilience of voter power.

What Is a Super PAC?

Super PACs, formally called independent-expenditure-only committees, were created after the 2010 Citizens United and Speechnow.org v. FEC court decisions. These rulings allowed unlimited fundraising and political spending by outside groups, as long as they don’t coordinate directly with campaigns.

While they can’t give money directly to a candidate’s campaign or legally coordinate strategy with them, Super PACs can:

• Raise unlimited money from individuals, corporations, unions, and other groups.

• Spend without limits on ads, mailers, phone banking, and digital campaigns.

• Target voters directly with sophisticated data, microtargeted ads, and social media strategies.

• Fund large-scale operations like canvassing programs, rallies, or media blitzes.

• Support or oppose specific candidates through independent expenditures that shape public opinion.

• Dominate the conversation by outspending grassroots campaigns and flooding the airwaves.

Together, these abilities make Super PACs some of the most powerful players in modern elections, even though they’re technically independent from the campaigns they influence. 

A candidate’s campaign might raise millions, but a well-funded Super PAC can spend tens of millions more to shape the race from the outside. Put simply: Super PACs are megaphones for wealthy donors and special interests, surrounding voters with messaging that changes how elections play out.

PAC vs. Super PAC: What’s the Difference?

To put Super PACs in context, it helps to compare them directly with traditional PACs. Both exist to raise money and influence elections, but they play by very different rules.

PACs were created in the 1940s as a legal way for groups of people, like unions, trade associations, and corporations, to pool donations and support candidates. The idea was that instead of unlimited individual contributions, there would be clear limits, transparency, and accountability. Today, PACs must register with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), file reports about their donors and spending, and follow strict contribution caps.

PACs can:

• Raise money from members, employees, or donors tied to an organization or cause.

• Contribute directly to candidates, with a $5,000 cap per candidate, per election.

• Donate to political parties, within capped annual limits.

• Coordinate with campaigns on messaging, strategy, and events.

• Bundle contributions from many supporters to demonstrate broad backing.

PACs are still popular because they provide direct access to candidates, which Super PACs legally can’t do. PACs may not have the unlimited spending power of Super PACs, but the money they do spend often buys influence and fosters direct ties with lawmakers. 

Super PACs, by contrast, don’t buy access in the same way. Instead, they wield power by spending millions to shape the environment around a candidate, through ads, mailers, and digital campaigns. While they can’t hand over a check to a candidate, the sheer scale of their spending still builds influence. Lawmakers know which Super PACs used their funds to help them win, and they often feel pressure to take those donors’ priorities seriously.

In short: PACs buy access inside the campaign, while Super PACs shape public opinion from the outside.

LEARN MORE: Understand the tangled web that is money in politics. 

Key PACs and Super PACs in 2025

Some notable Super PAC groups shaping elections right now include:

• MAGA Inc.: A pro-Trump Super PAC that has raised unprecedented sums to influence federal races. It’s emblematic of the scale of outside spending. 

• Fix the City: A heavily funded Super PAC in the 2025 NYC mayoral election. Mike Bloomberg alone contributed $8.3 million, making it the most well-funded PAC in the city's election history. 

• Priorities USA Action: One of the largest liberal Super PACs, supporting Democratic presidential candidates since 2012.

• America PAC: An Elon Musk-funded Super PAC created to support Trump and other conservative candidates. Musk himself supplied the overwhelming majority of its funding, giving the group enormous capacity for independent spending in the 2024 and 2025 election cycles. 

• American Bridge 21st Century: A key liberal Super PAC focused on opposition research and ad campaigns. In early 2024, it launched a $140 million offensive against Donald Trump, spending $25 million alone on abortion-related ads.

PACs, by contrast, operate with stricter limits. They can’t spend unlimited amounts, but they still wield influence by donating directly to candidates and buying access inside campaigns.

Notable PACs include: 

• National Association of Realtors PAC: One of the biggest-spending trade PACs, giving capped contributions directly to candidates across both parties.

• EMILY’s List PAC: A well-known Democratic PAC that directly supports pro-choice women candidates.

• NRA Political Victory Fund: The PAC of the National Rifle Association, which donates directly to candidates who support gun rights. It’s one of the most recognized issue-based PACs in the country.

• National Beer Wholesalers Association PAC: A powerful industry PAC that contributes to candidates from both major parties.

• Laborers’ International Union of North America PAC: A major union PAC that contributes to candidates supportive of organized labor.

While PACs and Super PACs are among the most visible players in campaign finance, they’re not the only ones shaping the money flow in elections. National party committees like the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Republican National Committee (RNC), political nonprofits (often called “dark money” groups), and joint fundraising committees also raise and spend large sums. Together, these groups create a complex web of funding streams that fuel modern campaigns.

How PACs and Super PACs Impact Elections

Both PACs and Super PACs play big roles in shaping modern campaigns. They don’t just raise money. They influence which candidates are competitive, what messages dominate, and how voters experience elections. There are four main ways PACs and Super PACs influence our elections and beyond:

#1: Amplifying Money in Politics

Super PACs, with their ability to raise and spend unlimited sums, reshape the financial scale of modern campaigns. 

In 2025, the Wisconsin Supreme Court election became the most expensive judicial race in U.S. history, with spending topping $100 million. Billionaire Elon Musk alone poured more than $14 million into backing conservative Brad Schimel. Despite this flood of money, the liberal candidate Sandra Susan Crawford ultimately won with 55% of the vote. 

The race shows both sides of the coin: Super PACs can supercharge the scale of spending in a campaign, but voter power can still overcome even record-breaking outside influence.

#2: Shaping Candidate Viability

PACs and Super PACs, through funding and outside spending, determine who has the resources to stay in the race. 

PACs give candidates capped but direct contributions that help cover essentials like staff and campaign infrastructure. Super PACs, meanwhile, spend independently to flood the airwaves with political ads or launch voter outreach efforts on a candidate’s behalf. While they’re not coordinating directly with campaigns, their outside spending can extend a candidate’s reach and allow campaigns to focus their limited funds on other priorities. 

Candidates without PAC or Super PAC backing often struggle to raise enough money or visibility to remain viable, no matter their grassroots appeal.

#3: Controlling the Narrative

PACs buy access inside campaigns, but Super PACs dominate the public conversation. Their ads can define a candidate before voters ever meet them, or flood districts with attack messages that shift polling.

A candidate might want to talk about education or local infrastructure, but if a Super PAC pours millions into attack ads about crime or immigration, those become the issues voters see most. 

Candidates may also feel compelled to set the record straight on those attacks, shifting their own campaign focus from positive policy ideas to defending their name. This power to set the agenda can drown out grassroots priorities and distort what the election is really about.

In the 2024 presidential cycle, MAGA Inc. spent millions on ads targeting Vice President Harris on immigration, painting her as the "border czar." These ads ran heavily in battleground states like Pennsylvania, Georgia, Nevada, and Arizona, shifting attention away from substantive debates on health care or the economy.

Rather than just promoting candidates, PACs and Super PACs are redefining the stakes of elections themselves, often sidelining the topics most important to everyday voters.

#4: Influencing Behavior After the Election

The influence of PACs and Super PACs doesn’t end when the ballots are counted. Candidates who benefit from large outside spending know exactly which groups backed them and which could fund their opposition in the next cycle. 

PAC and Super PAC spending create subtle but powerful incentives to prioritize donor interests in office, whether it’s pushing certain bills forward, avoiding controversial votes, or granting access to lobbyists tied to major funders. Even when no explicit deal is made, the expectation of future support shapes how lawmakers govern.

LEARN MORE: Explore all the ways big money affects our local elections. 

What PAC and Super PAC Influence Looks Like in Real Life

It’s one thing to talk about rules and spending limits, but the impact of PACs and Super PACs becomes clearer when you see how they’ve shaped real campaigns. 

Here are some recent examples:

Affordable New York – Airbnb’s NYC Super PAC

In the 2025 New York City municipal elections, Airbnb launched a Super PAC called Affordable New York to influence city council races in the Bronx. The Super PAC pumped $5 million into the race, spending nearly $700,000 on ads and mailers supporting council candidates aligned with their housing agenda. This outside spending introduced a powerful, well-resourced corporate voice into local housing politics, shaping campaign messages and candidate platforms around Airbnb’s interests.

Your City, Your Future – Boston Mayoral Race Spillover

The traditionally low-profile Boston mayoral race of 2025 drew national money and sparked unprecedented outside spending. A Super PAC aligned with Josh Kraft (the son of billionaire Patriots owner Robert Kraft) called Your City, Your Future received millions from New Balance chairman Jim Davis. They’ve raised over $3 million to fund attack ads, billboard campaigns, and text messaging targeting incumbent Michelle Wu. 

Meanwhile, Bold Boston, a pro-Wu Super PAC, raised $743,000, including six-figure support from the 1199 SEIU health workers union. The race is one of the most outside-influenced municipal contests in recent memory, raising concerns about coordination, negative campaigning, and the growing power of Super PACs in local politics.

Georgia Republican Assembly PAC – Ponzi Scheme Controversy

Georgia’s Ethics Commission filed a complaint against the now-dissolved Georgia Republican Assembly PAC, linked to a Ponzi scheme, for allegedly using illicit funds to influence state and local elections. The PAC spent over $220,000 across multiple elections, including targeting moderates and school board races without proper disclosure or registration as an independent group. This case illustrates how traditional PACs can become vehicles for corrupt financial influence, especially in low-profile local races with weak oversight.

Illinois Realtors Fund – Big Money in Local City Council Races

Several contested city council races unfolded in 2025 in Evanston, a suburb of Chicago, where housing and development policies were key deciding issues. The Illinois Realtors Fund, a traditional industry PAC, spent nearly $56,000 on independent expenditures (unlimited spending not coordinated with candidates) rather than direct campaign contributions. They primarily funded mailers and display ads supporting three specific council candidates. 

Those candidates benefited from increased visibility and messaging that aligned with pro-development agendas. While the budget might seem modest compared to national PAC spending, in a local context, it represented a meaningful boost and highlighted how local industry interests can sway results.

Why Super PACs and PACs Matter for Democracy

At the end of the day, PACs and Super PACs don’t just shape campaigns. They shape the health of democracy itself. 

Their influence raises some big problems:

• Wealthy Donors Dominate: When billionaires or industries pour millions into Super PACs, their priorities dominate the conversation. Everyday voters may still cast ballots, but their $20 donations or grassroots energy can’t compete with a flood of TV ads, mailers, and digital campaigns.

• Policy Tilts Toward Funders: Candidates know exactly who spent to help them win. Even without explicit coordination, that support creates pressure once they’re in office. Lawmakers may prioritize policies that protect those interests over community needs.

• Transparency Isn’t Always Real: While PACs and Super PACs must disclose their donors, “dark money” groups often funnel funds into them, hiding the true source of political influence. Voters are left guessing who is really behind the ads they see.

• Local Elections Feel Nationalized: As seen in Boston and New York City, local races are no longer immune from outside spending. That means neighborhood priorities can get drowned out by national partisan talking points.

PACs and Super PACs may operate within legal rules, but their influence distorts the promise of one person, one vote. If unchecked, big money risks making elections more about donors and less about democracy.

Curbing Outside Influence in Elections

Super PACs aren’t going away anytime soon. In fact, they’re likely to grow even more sophisticated, using data analytics, AI, and digital platforms to micro-target voters. That makes reform, transparency, and voter awareness even more critical.

Here’s what you can do:

• Back candidates who reject Super PAC money. Supporting grassroots and Independent candidates who run people-powered campaigns sends a clear message about what kind of democracy we want.

• Support small-donor matching. Programs like New York City’s 8-to-1 match amplify grassroots donations, giving regular voters more weight compared to big-dollar checks.

• Experiment with democracy vouchers. In cities like Seattle, every voter gets vouchers they can donate to local candidates, turning ordinary residents into campaign funders.

• Push for contribution limits. Stronger caps on how much PACs and individuals can give would help level the playing field.

Reform isn’t theoretical. It’s already happening at the state and city level. The more communities experiment with these solutions, the harder it becomes for big money to dominate unchecked. Change doesn’t just come from lawmakers. Voters, donors, and candidates themselves can choose to prioritize people-powered politics over Super PAC dollars.

LEARN MORE: Check out more ways we can reform campaign finance rules to strengthen our democracy. 

PACs, Super PACs, and the Future of Elections

PACs and Super PACs have become fixtures of American elections, shaping who runs, what issues dominate, and how candidates govern once elected. Their influence may be legal, but it often undermines the core principle of one person, one vote.

The good news is, voters aren’t powerless. From small-donor programs to democracy vouchers to candidates who refuse Super PAC support, reforms are already proving that people-powered politics can work.

At GoodParty.org, we’re building the tools and community to make that future possible, empowering Independent candidates, boosting grassroots campaigns, and putting voters back at the center of democracy. 

Photo by Kaboompics.com