How Super PACs Influence American Elections

In a season of big election news, tech magnate Elon Musk managed to make headlines once again. For the first time, he officially endorsed a presidential candidate. What’s more, he pledged to donate $45 million per month during the final few months of the 2024 election cycle to a Super PAC called the America PAC. Despite the heft of an estimated $108 million promised to help elect a candidate, it is not the biggest single donation, nor is this the first time a billionaire has sought to influence the outcome of a presidential election. 

The world of American elections is complex and rarely transparent, and Super Political Action Committees (Super PACs) play a pivotal role in contributing to that perception. Their dark money influence is immense, their operations are strategic, and their impact on democracy is a subject of intense debate. 

With the 2024 presidential election just around the corner, understanding the mechanisms, implications, and controversies surrounding Super PACs is crucial for an informed voter. Join us as we unpack the implications of Super PACs, distinguishing them from regular PACs, analyzing their impact on elections, and exploring the controversies they stir up.

What Is a Super PAC?

Super PACs, officially known as "independent-expenditure-only committees," are a type of political action committee (PAC) that emerged in the wake of two Supreme Court decisions in 2010. One was the Citizens United v. FEC  decision, and the other case was SpeechNow.org v. FEC. These rulings fundamentally altered the landscape of campaign finance in the United States by allowing Super PACs to raise and spend unlimited amounts of money to advocate for or against political candidates. 

However, they are prohibited from donating money directly to candidates or coordinating directly with their campaigns.

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

Although there are several variations of political action committees, the two main types are PACs and Super PACs. To understand the potential danger of Super PACs, it's essential to distinguish them from traditional PACs.

The main aspects of traditional PACs include:

• Contribution Limits: PACs can contribute directly to candidates but are subject to strict contribution limits. For example, a PAC can donate up to $5,000 per candidate, per election.

• Direct Contributions: PACs can give money directly to candidates and political parties.

• Coordination: PACs can coordinate directly with candidates and their campaigns.

On the other hand, Super PACs work within these parameters:

• Unlimited Spending: Super PACs can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money on political advertising and other forms of advocacy.

• No Direct Contributions: Super PACs cannot donate directly to candidates or political parties.

• No Coordination: Super PACs are prohibited from coordinating their spending with the candidates or campaigns they support.

However, loopholes in FEC regulations and lax enforcement enable dark money to influence campaigns through candidate advocacy and other means.

The Impact of Super PACs on Elections

The introduction of Super PACs has had a profound impact on American elections, reshaping the dynamics of how campaigns are funded and conducted. They achieve this in two ways: money and influence. 

Financial Muscle

Super PACs have significantly increased the amount of money flowing into political campaigns. According to OpenSecrets, Super PACs spent over $2.1 billion in the 2020 election cycle alone. This influx of money allows for more extensive and sophisticated campaign strategies, including nationwide advertising, voter outreach programs, and extensive data analytics.

In presidential elections, Super PACs often fund large-scale advertising blitzes, especially in swing states. For instance, in the 2016 election, Super PACs supporting Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump collectively spent hundreds of millions of dollars on television ads, online campaigns, and other forms of media.

Influence on Candidate Viability

Super PACs can make or break candidates by providing them with the financial resources needed to stay competitive. Candidates with substantial Super PAC support can often outlast their competitors in primary races, thanks to the ability to run extensive ad campaigns and build robust grassroots operations.

For example, during the 2012 Republican primary, Mitt Romney's Super PAC, Restore Our Future, spent heavily to support his candidacy and attack his rivals, significantly contributing to his eventual nomination.

Prominent Examples of Super PACs

Several high-profile Super PACs have become major players in recent election cycles, supporting various candidates and political ideologies:

Priorities USA Action

Support: Founded in 2011, this Super PAC has primarily supported Democratic candidates and was a major contributor to Barack Obama’s 2012 reelection campaign. In the 2016 and 2020 elections, Priorities USA Action was a significant supporter of Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden.

Spending: Priorities USA Action spent over $127 million during the 2020 election cycle, focusing on anti-Trump advertisements and pro-Biden messaging.

American Crossroads

Support: Karl Rove founded American Crossroads, a conservative Super PAC that supports Republican candidates.

Spending: During the 2019-2020 election cycle, American Crossroads and its affiliated nonprofit, Crossroads GPS, spent more than $83 million to support Republican candidates and attack Democrats. So far in 2024, they’ve spent 

Senate Majority PAC

Support: This Democratic Super PAC focuses on Senate races, aiming to secure and maintain a Democratic majority in the U.S. Senate.

Spending: During the 2020 election cycle, Senate Majority PAC spent $372 million to support Democratic Senate candidates.

SuperPACs and Political Corruption

The influence of Super PACs on American politics has raised significant concerns about political corruption and the integrity of democratic processes. Critics argue that the ability of wealthy individuals and corporations to pour unlimited funds into Super PACs creates an uneven playing field and allows for undue influence over elected officials.

The Wealthy Donor Problem

One of the primary criticisms of Super PACs is that they amplify the voices of the wealthy few at the expense of ordinary voters. A donor class consisting of billionaires and large corporations can donate millions of dollars to Super PACs, ensuring that their interests are represented in political discourse and policy making. This dynamic can lead to a form of "legalized corruption," where elected officials feel beholden to their wealthy benefactors.

For example, during the 2020 election cycle, the top 100 donors to Super PACs contributed over $1 billion, accounting for nearly half of all Super PAC donations. This concentration of financial power in the hands of a few individuals and entities raises concerns about the influence of money on policy decisions and legislative priorities.

The Lack of Transparency

While Super PACs are required to disclose their donors, the use of "dark money" groups complicates transparency. These groups, often organized as 501(c)(4) nonprofits, can donate to Super PACs without disclosing their donors. This lack of transparency makes it difficult to trace the origins of political spending and hold donors accountable.

For instance, in the 2018 midterm elections, dark money groups funneled hundreds of millions of dollars into Super PACs, obscuring the true funding sources for many political campaigns. This undermines the democratic principle of informed voting and allows for potential corruption to go unchecked.

Real-World Examples of Super PACs’ Influence

To illustrate the impact and controversies surrounding Super PACs, let's look at some real-world examples from recent election cycles.

2020 Presidential Election

Super PACs played a significant role in shaping the 2020 presidential race between Joe Biden and Donald Trump. Of the $2.1 billion spent during that election cycle, a significant portion was directed toward the presidential campaigns. 

Some of the top donors to Super PACs in 2020 included billionaires Michael Bloomberg, who donated over $67 million (and $1.2 billion in donations overall) to Democratic Super PACs, and Sheldon Adelson, who contributed more than $218 million to Republican SuperPACs.

The impact of Super PAC spending to support Biden and Trump was extensive, funding advertising campaigns, particularly in battleground states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. These efforts were crucial in mobilizing voters and influencing public opinion, which resulted in very narrow margins of victory on election day.

2018 Midterm Elections

The 2018 midterm elections also saw substantial Super PAC activity, particularly in highly competitive U.S. Senate and House races. According to OpenSecrets, Super PACs spent more than $800 million dollars to influence the 2018 midterm elections. 

For example, the conservative Super PAC Texans Are spent millions to support incumbent Senator Ted Cruz, while liberal Super PACs like Senate Majority PAC poured significant financial resources into Beto O'Rourke’s campaign. 

That isn’t Cruz’s first — or only — association with Super PACs. The collection of groups, named Keep the Promise I-III, was staked by several billionaires, including Robert Mercer and Toby Neugebauer. Collectively, they poured tens of millions into Ted Cruz’s failed 2016 presidential campaign. 

Backroom Deals

Super PAC money isn't only influencing presidential elections. One result of the Citizens United ruling was to legitimize the storied backroom deals of old and bring them into the modern era. 

The latest example of this was the recent marathon of voting to put Kevin McCarthy in the speaker’s chair, albeit temporarily. This was a powerful position that influenced legislative priorities and made him third in line for the presidency. Though there is no evidence that members of Congress were directly involved in the dealings, the voting was influenced by two powerful conservative Super PACs, Club for Growth and the Congressional Leadership Fund. 

Club for Growth, which is a combined Super PAC, multicandidate PAC, and 501(c)(4) organization, initially spent nearly $70 million during the 2022 midterms, a large portion in opposition to Kevin McCarthy. Jump to January of 2023, and the group sent a “Voter Alert” to members of Congress, urging them not to support McCarthy for Speaker. 

The Congressional Leadership Fund, which spent $227 million during the midterms, wanted McCarthy in that speaker’s chair. As a result, they made a backroom deal with Club for Growth not to challenge open seats in safe Republican districts or primary Republican incumbents in exchange for backing McCarthy for Speaker. 

The Future of Super PACs

Super PACs are playing an even more prominent role as the 2024 election cycle draws to its peak. The stakes are higher than ever, with both major parties and their associated Super PACs gearing up for a fierce battle to sway public opinion and secure electoral victories. 

As of July 2024, there are more than 2,223 different groups and 173 single-candidate Super PACS, and they’ve collectively spent more than $800 million so far. More than 85% of that amount is being spent by conservative donors. 

The impact of these Super PACs is affected by:

• Technological Advancements: The use of data analytics, social media, and digital advertising by Super PACs is likely to become even more sophisticated. Targeted advertising based on voter data can enhance the effectiveness of campaign strategies, reaching specific demographics with tailored messages.

• Regulatory Scrutiny: The debate over the role of money in politics continues, with calls for increased regulation and transparency. Some lawmakers and advocacy groups are pushing for reforms to limit the influence of Super PACs and dark money in elections.

• Voter Awareness: As awareness of Super PAC influence grows, voters may become more discerning about the sources of political messaging. Increased scrutiny of Super PAC spending and donor transparency could drive demand for reforms and more equitable campaign finance practices.

Final Thoughts

Super PACs have undeniably transformed the landscape of American elections, injecting vast sums of money into the political process and raising critical questions about the influence of wealth on our democracy. While they provide candidates with resources to mount competitive campaigns, they also pose significant challenges to the principles of transparency, accountability, and equal representation.

As we move closer to the 2024 presidential election, understanding the role and impact of Super PACs is essential for voters who want to know the people and organizations pulling the strings behind the scenes of our elections. By following the money to the sources and analyzing the effects of SuperPAC spending, citizens can better grasp the forces shaping their electoral choices and push for a more fair and transparent democratic process.

Join GoodParty.org’s growing movement to learn more about how you can help promote transparency and build a government that represents people over powerbrokers.