Campaign Finance and Rules

The landscape of campaign finance has changed dramatically in the past decade. In 2010, the Supreme Court lifted longstanding restrictions on independent campaign spending. In a landmark decision, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Court allowed corporations and labor unions to make unrestricted donations to campaigns. This paved the way for the creation of a type of political action committee (PAC) known as a super PAC. While they must disclose their donors, super PACs can raise and spend unlimited money. As a result, they allow candidates and their wealthiest supporters to avoid limits on direct contributions to candidates. Super PACs cannot donate directly to a campaign or political party. However, they can spend money independently for (or against) a candidate. This is known as outside spending.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), an explosion of outside spending erupted in the decade after the Citizens United ruling. Between the start of 2010 and the end of 2019, outside spending totaled $4.5 billion, compared with just $750 million over the prior two decades. The influence of top donors also went up in that same period. The top ten donor families gave $1.2 billion in federal elections. This represents 7 percent of total spending during that period (compared with less than 1 percent in the prior decade).

In the 2024 election, super PACs spent over $2.7 billion. This was up from $2.1 billion in the 2020 election. This represented about 61 percent of total outside spending. Moreover, outside spending exceeded what the candidates themselves were able to raise. According to CRP, outside spending surpassed that of all candidates combined in 50 federal races.

Campaign funding has also become less transparent. In large part, this is due to the proliferation of dark-money groups. Unlike super PACs, these groups spend money to influence elections but do not have to disclose their donors. It is estimated that over $1 billion in dark-money spending occurred during the 2024 election.  

The 2010 Citizens United decision also approved the use of disclaimers in advertisements. The intent was to better inform the voting public. Nevertheless, advertisements often include misleading or benign-sounding names. To combat this vagueness, some states have required disclaimers to list the top five funders in each political advertisement. At the federal level, however, Congress has yet to modernize disclosure laws. In addition, attempts to enforce existing rules have left the Federal Election Commission largely deadlocked.

Another challenge has been aggressive and sometimes outright deceptive campaign and PAC fundraising appeals by direct mail, text, social media, and other means. These tactics can include phony bill notices, official-looking correspondence, fake matching donation offers, and prechecked boxes that automatically repeat donations a donor only intends to make one time. Deceptive campaign solicitations disproportionately affect older adults. They are more likely to make campaign contributions than younger adults and, in some cases, are specifically targeted in the fundraising appeals. One analysis found that older adults were more likely to receive refunds of their campaign contributions than younger people. Such refunds often occur when donors feel unsatisfied or duped. People age 70 and older received more than four times as much money in refunds than those under the age of 50.

One encouraging trend in campaign finance is the success of public financing systems at the state and local levels. These programs match small individual contributions with public funds. In return, candidates promise to limit spending and private fundraising. Public financing systems increase the number of small donors and limit the influence of wealthy groups and individuals. They also allow candidates who are not independently wealthy to run for office. Public financing is available for presidential candidates as well. It is used in both primary and general elections. However, almost no major party candidates have taken it in recent years. This is because doing so limits fundraising ability. There is no such program for congressional candidates.