Following the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling in 2010, super PACs have flooded our elections with unlimited amounts of money. These independent fundraising organizations have changed campaign fundraising without ever being in direct connection with campaigns. The 2016 election cycle cost about $6.5 billion, and the 2020 election came in at a whopping $14.4 billion. With such large sums of money moving each cycle, how much does it actually influence our elections?
Before answering this, though, let’s take a step back and examine how money enters our system. Do different sources have different levels of impact on elections? Does the $10 you donated actually have an effect? What about the $119 million Elon Musk has spent backing Donald Trump?
To answer that first question — whether different forms of fundraising affect outcomes differently — all we have to do is look at recent election cycles. The 2020 election saw over $4 billion in small donor contributions, which are defined as any contributions below $200. Soon after, the 2022 midterm election cycle broke records with its millions of small dollar contributions to congressional candidates. Recent cycles are indicative of small donors showing up and showing out.
A significant percentage of small donations come from direct campaign contributions. For the 2024 presidential election, Independent candidate Cornel West leads the race in overall share of small dollar donations, with donations under $200 composing 53% of his war chest. Kamala Harris follows West at just under 43%. That equates to over $428 million in small donors alone received by the Harris campaign. In contrast, Donald Trump ranks fourth in share of small donor contributions behind Libertarian Chase Oliver, with only about 29%. This still translates to over $109 million that the Trump campaign has received from small donors.
Despite these seemingly-impressive numbers, small dollar donations pale in comparison to the money that funnels into candidates’ coffers from large donors and super PACs. Illustrating the scale of this disparity, 100 big donors alone were able to match 60% of all contributions made by small donors in the 2022 midterm elections.
Since the 2010 Citizens United decision, large donors primarily direct their donations to super PACs, a form of PAC that allows for unlimited contributions to finance independent political activity. While PACs have existed since 1944 to collect donations from individuals, corporations, and unions to deliver directly to candidates, these institutions are subject to strict limitations on how much they can receive from individual donors. The Citizens United decision allowed PACs to evolve into super PACs, a new form of political fundraising committee capable of receiving unlimited donations from individual donors but barred from coordinating their expenditures with candidates and their campaigns directly. When these super PACs do not disclose the identities of their donors, that’s referred to as dark money.
Although the FEC requires super PACs to disclose the names of their donors, savvy super PACs can circumvent this mandate by forming shell companies or dark money groups that use their 501(c)(4) nonprofit status to shield the names of the individual donors behind them. While 501(c)(3) status forbids organizations from engaging in any partisan political activity, 501(c)(4) organizations are considered “social welfare groups,” which allows them latitude in political lobbying and advocacy. It’s estimated that the 2020 election cycle attracted over $1 billion in dark money.
Given the amount of dark money entering our system, there are many ways this uncoordinated cash can be utilized. Most of the money is spent on targeted political advertisements, especially in swing states and close races.
This is particularly true this election cycle. The 2024 election is expected to boil down to seven key swing states: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. As a result, 70% of all spending on ads has been concentrated in these states.
Does spending all of this money on political advertisements actually make a difference? Before Citizens United, political advertising had been shown to have a large persuasive effect on voters, but only immediately after they were exposed to the ad. More recent studies have found that political ad effectiveness varies too much between election cycles to conclude anything about which ad spots work, or how.
So it appears that, despite the exorbitant amounts of funds entering our electoral process, more money doesn’t necessarily equate to a win for the flush candidate. While this money can be used for advertising purposes, there’s no guarantee that these ads will be received by the audience in the way the campaign intended. Although data shows that in 90% of House elections, the candidate that spends the most will win, this relationship is more correlatory than causal. Other factors like incumbency and district partisanship also contribute to who wins in these elections.
Given that the effectiveness of political ads has been thrown into question compared to what was once thought, why are they still the number one expenditure for a political campaign? One explanation is the rise in social media ads in the most recent election cycles. While the FEC requires source disclaimers for radio, TV, and newspaper ads, social media ads are not subject to the same rules, meaning there’s less transparency as to who’s creating or posting political content on social media. With campaigns having the ability to flood these platforms with content from undisclosed sources, political ads are seen as more pervasive in our digital age.
Additionally, money does seem to impact early primaries where a front-runner has not already been established. When many people are seeking a nomination or there is no incumbent, outspending your political opponents can help thin out an oversaturated pool. Once a clear front-runner has been cemented, however, opponents are less likely to spend the big bucks if they are clearly going to lose the nomination.
But what about political ad spending during the general election? While there’s no consensus on the effectiveness of ads, political advertising has been useful in Harris’s campaign to differentiate herself from President Biden and to draw a distinct policy narrative. And while there are diminishing returns for each dollar spent on political advertising, campaigns still need to advertise in response to their opponents’ messaging. No strategic candidate would willingly give up the “arms race” of political advertising and sacrifice valuable face time with voters.
Despite Americans’ frustrations over the perceived effect of money on our elections, the 2024 election is projected to be the most expensive cycle yet, closing out at a staggering $15.9 billion. This comes amidst reports of Kamala Harris out-fundraising Trump by twice his haul between July 1 and Sept. 30. With unclear ad effectiveness, very few disclosures about the use of dark money, and increasingly negative voter perceptions of money in our elections, the effects of money will only be known once we see the results at the ballot box.
