The Cycle of Reproducing Financial Influence: The Implications of the Emergence and Strengthening of Super PACs in the United States Electoral System

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

Ph.D. Candidate in Regional Studies–North America, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Following the Citizens United and SpeechNow judicial rulings in 2010, the financial architecture of U.S. elections underwent a fundamental transformation, and “Super PACs” became the central mechanism for organizing resources outside the formal framework of parties and campaigns. Drawing on the legal and political science literature, Federal Election Commission data, and media monitoring, this article addresses the question of what consequences the emergence and strengthening of Super PACs have had for the financial, communicative, and organizational processes of electoral competition. The research hypothesis is that, by outsourcing channels of fundraising and expenditure, Super PACs have elevated financial influence from the individual and party level to a networked and self-reproducing level. The findings of this study, conducted on the basis of a descriptive-analytical approach and using documentary research, show that since 2010, outside spending has grown exponentially and has captured a significant share of electoral messaging from official campaign organizations. Financial resources have become concentrated in the hands of a minority of major donors and organized consortia, thereby influencing the legislative agenda. Negative advertising and techniques such as “redboxing” have shifted potential liabilities from candidates to outside arms. Dark money networks have deepened and weakened electoral transparency. Moreover, with the expansion of single-candidate Super PACs, many party functions have been delegated to expanded networks and “shadow parties.” The overall result of these developments is that financial influence in American politics is reproduced not episodically, but through a stable and institutionalized cycle—a cycle that raises serious questions about political equality, transparency, and the democratic quality of elections in the United States.

Keywords

References

Adams, Sarah E. (2020). How Single-Candidate Super PACs Changed the Game and How to Change it Back: Adopting a Presumption of Coordination and Fixing the FEC’s Gridlock. Brooklyn Law Review, 85(3), 851-881.
Baumgartner, F. R., Berry, J. M., Hojnacki, M., Kimball, D. C. & Leech, B. L. (2009). Lobbying and Policy Change: Who Wins, Who Loses, and Why. University of Chicago Press.
Bawn, K., Cohen, M., Karol, D., Masket, S., Noel, H., & Zaller, J. (2012). A Theory of Political Parties: Groups, Policy Demands and Nominations in American Politics. Perspectives on Politics, 10(3), 571–597. https://doi:10.1017/S1537592712001624
Bimber, B. (2003). Information and American Democracy: Technology in the Evolution of Political Power. Cambridge University Press.
Bonica, A. & Rosenthal, H. (2015). The Wealth Elasticity of Political Contributions by the Forbes 400. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2668780
Bricker, B. (2017). Citizens United and Political Accountability.  Corruption, Accountability and Discretion. Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2053-769720170000029011
Briffault, R. (2012). Super PACs. Minnesota Law Review, 96(4), 1644–1693.
Dwyre, D. (2017). Everything is Relative: Are Political Parties Playing a Meaningful Campaign Finance Role in U.S. Federal Elections?, The University of Akron. https://www.uakron.edu/bliss/state-of-the-parties/papers/dwyre.pdf
Dwyre, D. (2017). Political Parties and Campaign Finance: What Role Do the National Parties Play?. Washington, D.C., April 21, 2017. Bipartisan Policy Center
Desmarais, B. A., La Raja, R. J. & Kowal, M. S. (2015). The Fates of Challengers in U.S. House Elections: The Role of Extended Party Networks in Supporting Candidates and Shaping Electoral Outcomes. American Journal of Political Science, 59(1), 194-211.
Dowling, C. M., & Wichowsky, A. (2015). Attacks without consequence? Candidates, parties, groups, and the changing face of negative advertising. American Journal of Political Science, 59(1), 19–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12127
Fishkin, J. & Gerken, H. (2015). The Party's Over: McCutcheon, Shadow Parties, and the Future of the Party System. Supreme Court Review, 2015(1).
Foy-Sutherland, G. & Ghosh, S. (2024). Coordination in Plain Sight: The Breadth and Uses of “Redboxing” in Congressional Elections. Election Law Journal, 23(2), 149–172. https://doi.org/10.1089/elj.2023.0038
Frazen, A. (2021). How citizens united drastically changed the campaign finance reform landscape: implications for donor behavior, polarization, and transparency of political information. Johns Hopkins University. August 2021. https://jscholarship.library.jhu.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/cef0359d-bb22-4fa2-83b9-13950c588866/content
Gilens, M., & Page, B. I. (2014). Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens. Perspectives on Politics, 12(3), 564–581.
Hall, R. L., Deardorff, A. V. (2006). Lobbying as Legislative Subsidy. The American Political Science Review, 100(1), 69-84.
Hasen, R. L. (2016). Plutocrats United: Campaign Money, the Supreme Court, and the Distortion of American Elections. Yale University Press.
Hertel-Fernandez, A., Skocpol, T. & Sclar, J. (2018). When Political Mega-Donors Join Forces: How the Koch Network and the Democracy Alliance Influence Organized U.S. Politics on the Right and Left. Studies in American Political Development, 32(2), 1-39. DOI:10.1017/S0898588X18000081
Issacharoff, S. & Karlan, P. (1999). The Hydraulics of Campaign Finance Reform. Texas Law Review, vol. 77, 1705-1738.
Issacharoff, S. (2016). Outsourcing Politics: The Hostile Takeovers of Our Hollowed Out Political Parties. New York University School of Law, No. 16-52.
Kang, M. S. (2013). The Year of the Super PAC. The George Washington Law Review, 81(1902), 1902-1953.
Kalla, J. L. & Broockman, D. E. (2016). Campaign Contributions Facilitate Access to Congressional Officials: A Randomized Field Experiment. American Journal of Political Science, 60(3), 545-558.
Kalla, J. L. & Broockman, D. E. (2018). The Minimal Persuasive Effects of Campaign Contact in General
Elections: Evidence from 49 Field Experiments. American Political Science Review, 112(1), 148-166.
Corrado, A. (2006). The Regulatory Environment: Uncertainty in the Wake of Change. In D. B. Magleby, A. Corrado, & K. D. Patterson, Financing the 2004 Election (pp. 30–67). Brookings Institution Press.
Magleby, D. B., Nelson, C. J. (1990). The money chase. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution.
Martin, S. E., & Schatzinger, H. M. (2020). Game Changers: How Dark Money and Super PACs Are Transforming US Campaigns. Palgrave Macmillan.
Mayer, J. (2016). Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right. Doubleday.
Oklobdzija, S. (2024). Dark Parties: Unveiling Nonparty Communities in American Political Campaigns. American Political Science Review, 118(1), 401–422. https://doi:10.1017/S0003055423000187
Pierson, P. (1993). When effect becomes Cause: Policy Feedback and Political Change. World Politics, 45(4), 595-628.
Rhodes, R. A. W. (2006). Policy Network Analysis. In The Oxford Handbook of Public Policy. Oxford university press. 425-447.
Sharma, S. (2021). Voters Need to Know: Assessing the Legality of Redboxing in Federal Elections. Yale Law Journal, 130(7), 1898–1951.
Shanor, A. (2016). The new Lochner. Wisconsin Law Review, 2016(1), 133-208. https://doi:10.2139/ssrn.2652762
Skocpol, T. (1992). Protecting Soldiers and Mothers: The Political Origins of Social Policy in the United States. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Skocpol, T. & Hertel-Fernandez, A. (2016). The Kock Network and Republican Party Extremism. Perspectives on Politics, 14(3), 681-699.
Smith, B. A. (2018). Campaign finance and free speech: finding the radicalism in Citizens united v. FEC. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 41(1), 139–151.
Afaneh, S. (2024). Campaign Funding in US Elections. Fiker Institute. January, 2024. https://www.fikerinstitute.org/publications/campaign-funding-in-us-elections
Barron’s. (2024). The House Passed a Crypto Bill That’s Crucial for the Industry. Its Future Is Murky. May 22, 2024. https://www.barrons.com/articles/bitcoin-crypto-bill-fit21-coinbase-stock-e0713031
Blockworks. (2024). Senate passes resolution to overturn SAB 121. May 16, 2024. https://blockworks.co/news/senate-passes-resolution-to-overturn-sab121
Britannica. (n.d). Buckley v. Valeo. https://www.britannica.com/event/Buckley-v-Valeo
Campaign Legal Center. (2025, March 27). Voters need to know: What is redboxing and how it undermines democracy. Campaign Legal Center. https://campaignlegal.org/update/voters-need-know-what-redboxing-and-how-it-undermines-democracy
Congress of the U.S. (n.d). Constitution of the United States. https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/
DL News. (2024). Why crypto’s Fairshake super PAC has raised 20% less money than people think. DL News. https://www.dlnews.com/articles/regulation/why-super-pac-fairshake-has-less-money-than-people-think
Dwyre, D. (2017). Political Parties and Campaign Finance: What Role Do the National Parties Play?. Bipartisan Policy Center. https://bipartisanpolicy.org/download/?file=/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Political-Parties-and-Campaign-Finance-What-Role-Do-the-National-Parties-Play.-Diana-Dwyre.-Diana-Dwyre.pdf
EBSCO. (2022). Negative Political Advertising: Overview. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/religion-and-philosophy/negative-political-advertising-overview 
Forbes. (Oct 28, 2024). Michael Bloomberg Gives Harris $50 Million, Report Says. https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2024/10/28/michael-bloomberg-gives-harris-50-million-report-says
Gordon, S. (2024). Soft Money: What It Is, How It Works, and History. Investopedia. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/softmoney.asp
National Review. (Oct 21, 2024). Preserve America PAC Tears into Kamala Harris on Border, Economy. https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/preserve-america-pac-tears-into-kamala-harris-on-border-economy
Open Secrets. (2012). 2012 Outside Spending by Single-Candidate Super PACs. Center for Responsive Politics. https://www.opensecrets.org/outside-spending/single_candidate_super_pacs/2012
Open Secrets. (2016). 2016 Outside Spending by Single-Candidate Super PACs. Center for Responsive Politics. https://www.opensecrets.org/outside-spending/single_candidate_super_pacs/2016
Open Secrets. (2020). 2020 Outside Spending by Single-Candidate Super PACs. Center for Responsive Politics. https://www.opensecrets.org/outside-spending/single_candidate_super_pacs/2020
Open Secrets. (2022). 2022 Top Donors to Outside Spending Groups. Center for Responsive Politics. https://www.opensecrets.org/outside-spending/top_donors/2022?disp=O&type=V&superonly=S
Open Secrets. (2024). 2024 Outside Spending by Single-Candidate Super PACs. Center for Responsive Politics. https://www.opensecrets.org/outside-spending/single_candidate_super_pacs/2020
Open Secrets. (2024). 2024 Top Donors to Outside Spending Groups. Center for Responsive Politics. https://www.opensecrets.org/outside-spending/top_donors/2024?disp=O&type=V&superonly=S
Open Secrets. (2025a). Dark money basics. Center for Responsive Politics. https://www.opensecrets.org/dark-money/basics
Open Secrets. (2025b). Top Elections. Center for Responsive Politics. https://www.opensecrets.org/dark-money/top-elections
Open Secrets. (n.d, a). Total outside spending by election cycle. Center for Responsive Politics. https://www.opensecrets.org/outside-spending/by_cycle
Open Secrets. (n.d, b). Outside spending by election cycle, excluding party committees. Center for Responsive Politics. https://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/cycle-totals
Open Secrets. (n.d, c). About Outside Spending. Center for Responsive Politics. https://www.opensecrets.org/outside-spending
Pew Research Center. (2023). 7 facts about Americans’ views of money in politics. Oct 23, 2023. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/10/23/7-facts-about-americans-views-of-money-in-politics
The American Presidency Project. (n.d). Statement on Signing the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/statement-signing-the-federal-election-campaign-act-1971
The New Yorker. (2024). Silicon Valley, the New Lobbying Monster. Oct 7, 2024. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/10/14/silicon-valley-the-new-lobbying-monster
Wesleyan Media Project. (2012). Presidential Ads 70 Percent Negative in 2012, Up from 9 Percent in 2008. https://mediaproject.wesleyan.edu/jump-in-negativity-2
Wesleyan Media Project. (2020). Political Ads in 2020: Fast and Furious. https://mediaproject.wesleyan.edu/2020-summary-032321
Wesleyan Media Project. (2024). More Than $4.5 Billion in Ad Spending This Cycle. https://mediaproject.wesleyan.edu/releases-103124 
Wesleyan Media Project. (2025). Dark Money on TV in the 2024 Elections. https://mediaproject.wesleyan.edu/dark-money-on-tv-in-the-2024-elections/
American Strategic Studies
Volume 6, Issue 1 - Serial Number 1
Serial number 21 - Spring 2026
July 2026

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 13 September 2025
  • Revise Date: 05 June 2026
  • Accept Date: 13 July 2026
  • Publish Date: 22 June 2026

Share

How to cite

Statistics