During the 2024 elections, political advertisers spent tens of billions of dollars trying to will their preferred candidates into office. The groundwork for this historic spending spree, however, was actually laid exactly 15 years ago.

On January 21, 2010, the United States Supreme Court opened the floodgates to campaign spending by overturning a ban prohibiting corporations, unions, and other groups from making independent expenditures for or opposing candidates. . The court’s 5-4 ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission continues to divide Democrats and Republicans on key issues related to wealth, political influence and free speech.

It has also served as perhaps the most consequential catalyst of so-called “dark money” in the history of U.S. elections, watchdogs say, particularly in the last cycle.

The 2010 decision, long celebrated by conservatives and condemned by progressives, overturned a hundred years of law and was based on the justices’ idea that certain spending restrictions violated the First Amendment. It also ushered in a complicated new era of election spending in the United States, raising fears among the left that, in a formula that seems less transparent, wealthy donors will play too big a role in controlling elections.

For much of the right, the court’s ruling in the Citizens United case helped repair the American precept of free speech in elections.

Materially, Citizens United is responsible for the creation of what are now known as super PACs. These types of political action committees, which have exploded in growth since the 2010 decision, may spend and raise unlimited sums of money backing candidates, legislation, or ballot initiatives. They typically receive cash infusions from affiliated “dark money” groups registered under 501(c)(4), a section of the IRS code for tax-exempt entities that do not have to disclose their donors.

“The Citizens United ruling fundamentally reshaped the campaign finance landscape, enabling outside entities to wield unprecedented influence in elections in ways that were previously unimaginable,” said Anna Massoglia, a money-in-politics researcher and editor-in-chief of Influence Brief.

While super PACs and nonprofit political outfits must operate independently of campaigns, the line between the two has become increasingly blurred, thanks to an FEC notice in March, Massoglia said.

HOW KAMALA HARRIS MADE A BILLION DOLLARS

Over the course of the 2024 election, nowhere was the influence of super PACs felt more than in the big money race between former Vice President Kamala Harris and President-elect Donald Trump.

In the GOP primaries, super PACs also played a prominent role in boosting candidates, such as Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL), whose allies poured over $145 million into a group called Never Back Down.

In the general election, deep-pocketed organizations such as Future Forward, Make America Great Again Inc., America PAC, and American Bridge 21st Century doled out checks on digital and TV ads, canvassing, and other efforts boosting Trump and Harris, respectively. Along with its tax-exempt arm, the pro-Harris group Future Forward reeled in hundreds of millions of dollars from Bill Gates, Michael Bloomberg, George Soros, and other left-leaning billionaires.

On the House and Senate side, behemoth groups such as Senate Majority PAC, Congressional Leadership Fund, Senate Leadership Fund, and House Majority PAC spent more than $933 million influencing the 2024 elections, federal records show.

“Knowledge tells the story” of how Citizens United reframed crusade spending, said Brendan Glavin, director of analysis at the nonpartisan watchdog organization OpenSecrets.

“In 2024, $4.3 billion was spent by outside groups — 13 times what was spent in 2008,” Glavin said.

That staggering funding is the culmination and product of a sustained operation since 2010 by Democrats and Republicans to build party infrastructure that aims to give candidates an edge come Election Day.

That’s also the case, Glavin noted, thanks to a 2010 federal court ruling in SpeechNOW. org v. FEC, which removed donation limits for independent expenses, such as ad purchases.

Even as Democrats began adopting new post-Citizens United regulations for participating in elections, progressive nonprofit teams continued to criticize the measure. The left-wing organization End Citizens United issued a press release this month highlighting that more than $300 million was spent on the 2024 election through wealthy pro-Trump donors who have since been appointed to administration positions.

“We are now under an oligarchy,” said Tiffany Muller, president of End Citizens United. “A small organization of elites dominates both the personal and public sectors. »

“These super PACs are funded through a small handful of Americans and entities,” Craig Holman, a lobbyist for the progressive group Public Citizen, told the Washington Examiner. “Citizens United has made small donors almost obsolete. »

In the years since Citizens United’s moot ruling, the limits of what would possibly be allowed under the crusade funding law are being tested.

A new FEC notice, issued in March of last year, caused a stir in Washington, D. C. , where lawyers advising crusades were given new equipment in Citizens United’s post-crusade financial framework to advise their clients.

The opinion, prompted by legal tension from Democratic attorney Marc Elias, maintains that campaigns and PACs can coordinate on canvassing matters. He argued that this does constitute “public communication” – which the FEC characterizes as advertising, such as billboards, direct mail, telephone banking, cable broadcasting, etc.

The March resolution was significant because it had long been understood, adding in the post-Citizens United landscape, that it was taboo for campaigns to coordinate with outside groups like super PACs.

The new lax regulations were temporarily followed through Trump’s allies, the Elon Musk-backed America PAC organization. The organization has spent more than $250 million on the 2024 election, records show.

And the Trump campaign, eager to take advantage of the new equipment it will get under the law, has signed data-sharing agreements with groups, as well as arranging coordination with the groups.

“The Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling identified that the anti-corruption purpose of the federal crusade law did not justify restricting independent and relaxed speech, which we value,” said attorney Mike Columbo. in funding rate of the Republican crusade at Dhillon Law Group. “Likewise, last year, the FEC ruled that the law’s regulation of certain types of advertising did not justify restricting healthy democratic activities and in-person efforts to inspire others to vote. »

Both decisions “reflect a considered interpretation of the law that respects our political freedoms,” Columbo said.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE ABOUT THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Glavin, the OpenSecrets researcher, said the FEC’s new ruling solidified what was already the case: Crusade spending will only increase over time. The sky is the limit.

“Given the increasingly important role that super PACs play in classic campaign activities and the FEC resolution of 2024 relaxing the rules of coordination between campaigns and super PACs, we can expect “the trend of increased cash in elections to continue. “” said Glavin.