The 2022 elections are on track to shatter record levels of spending in a midterm year. Total expenditures in federal elections are projected to top $9.3 billion. For context, adjusted for inflation, the 2018 midterms saw $5.7 billion in spending, and 2014 had $3.8 billion. As spending continues to rise each cycle, it is increasingly important to understand where all this money comes from. So far in this election cycle, 1,407,016 unique donors have contributed over $200 to federal candidates, political action committees, parties, and outside groups. However, a growing portion of donations comes from corporations, individual super donors, Super PACs, and untraceable donations. This outside spending presents a unique threat to our democracy. Mega-donors pouring money into outside organizations are gaining influence over elections and legislation. Citizens and the media should shine a light on these new spending methods to hold politicians accountable. 

As outside spending has become prominent in our elections, Super PACs have led the charge. Over two-thousand political groups organized as Super PACs have raised a total of $1.69 billion for the 2022 midterms. Super PACs are political action committees that are allowed to raise unlimited money from corporations, unions, and individuals. Super PACs avoid the rule that nobody can donate more than $2,900 to a single political candidate in each cycle by not technically coordinating directly with any party or candidate. While they are required to disclose where their money comes from, they often list corporations or shell corporations that make the true source of the donation unclear. 

Outside of Super PACS, nonprofit organizations are exerting their influence on our elections. Spending from these groups is labeled "dark money" because they are not required to disclose their donors' information. Anonymous donations open the door for wealthy actors to interfere with judicial independence or for foreign interests to funnel money into American elections. Armed with unlimited and anonymous funding, nonprofits are starting to flex their muscles in elections. In the 2020 presidential election, the top 15 Democrat-aligned political nonprofits spent $1.5 billion, while the top 15 Republican-aligned nonprofits spent $900 million. These nonprofits outraised the presidential candidates themselves. 

In 2020, a conservative nonprofit called the Marble Freedom Trust scored a $1.6 billion donation from electronics manufacturing mogul Barre Seid. Seid's gift was the largest donation ever given to a political nonprofit and could serve as a preview of what is to come based on current trends in outside spending. $1.6 billion is an absurd amount of money to be at the disposal of a political nonprofit. This gigantic donation gives them the capacity to influence elections and policy for years to come. The Marble Freedom Trust will be able to fund local, state, and federal elections, shape public opinion, fund think tanks, and influence the appointment of judges. While this donation was originally made sometime in mid-late 2020, Seid’s identity was only revealed in August 2022 after investigative journalists traced the origin of the money through various tax documents and campaign filings. We now know the origin of this massive donation, but there is nothing to stop the next one from being anonymous. Seid has a history of making generous donations in complete privacy, and weak campaign finance laws have given people like him more legal avenues to make anonymous political contributions. 

Outside money did not always have such a central role in elections. As recently as 2010, total independent expenditures totaled only $71.6 million. Just two years later, outside spending shot up to $442 million. This drastic change was no coincidence. Outside spending was ushered into American politics following the landmark supreme court decision of Citizens United v. FEC.

In 2008, a conservative nonprofit group named Citizens United challenged the Federal Elections Committee’s campaign finance laws after the FEC forced them to remove an attack ad against Hillary Clinton because it was too close to the presidential primary. Two years later, a 5-4 Supreme Court decision declared that corporations and other outside groups could spend unlimited money on elections. The majority opinion argued that limiting spending from outside groups violated the first amendment right to political speech. This decision assumed that spending would not be corrupt and would instead be transparent. As we have seen the influence of mega-donors and dark money, it is clear that assumption has turned out to be far from true. This is not how democracy is supposed to function. 

This unlimited, opaque funding structure gives immense power to the ultra-rich in selecting political candidates and, ultimately, the policies that get passed. For races in the House of Representatives, the candidate who raises more money wins 90% of the time. Money correlates with winning, but it is also true that winning attracts money, as donors seek to influence politicians in office. In 2018, Republican politicians were open about donor pressure to pass tax cut legislation. Republican Congressman Chris Collins said, "My donors are basically saying, 'Get it done or don't ever call me again.'" Senator Lindsey Graham echoed Collins, saying, "The financial contributions will stop" if they failed to pass the tax cuts. Money and special interests have always had a disproportionate influence on American politics, and allowing unlimited and anonymous donations exacerbates the problem.

Both parties are at fault for exploiting this system. Money flows into both Democratic and Republican causes at almost equal rates. However, significant differences lie in how politicians talk about Citizens United and unlimited election spending. Republicans have championed the system, whereas Democrats have largely argued against it. That raises the question: Is it better to openly support a corrupt system or criticize it while simultaneously benefiting from it? To the Democrats' credit, they have begun to offer solutions. For example, Democrats in Congress are pushing to pass the DISCLOSE Act, which would strengthen disclosure and disclaimer requirements. The act would legally require any organization spending money on federal elections to disclose their donors who give $10,000 or more. While the legislation advanced through the House, the Senate has been unable to pass the law without support from a single Republican. 

There have been other recent attempts to stop the influence of outside spending in our elections. For example, Representative David Price’s Stop Super PAC-Candidate Coordination Act sought to limit Super-PACs ability to work directly with candidates, and Representative Katie Porter’s Foreign Political Influence Elimination Act of 2021 tried to broaden the prohibitions on foreign-affiliated corporations participating in our elections. Both of these bills failed, and there is no clear path toward any reform in the near future. Unfortunately, incumbent politicians lack incentives to vote for laws that directly hurt their chance at re-election. The system is self-reinforcing as wealthy donors help elect candidates who will then protect the wealthy donor’s influence by allowing them to continue pouring money into their future races. Since reform is unlikely to originate from within Washington, pressure must mount from the outside. 

As the ultra-rich get a hold of our political process at every level, the average person’s influence shrinks. To hold our politicians accountable, we must know who is funding them. To ensure politicians represent all their constituents, not just their top donors, outside spending must be limited. If politicians are unwilling to make these reforms on their own, public pressure must build to pass them. Organizations like End Citizens United are organizing to take big money out of politics. Their message is clear: democracy is not for sale.