Today, dive into a critical aspect of American elections: Political Action Committees, or PACs. These entities play a significant role in financing campaigns and influencing elections, but how much do we know about them?

I will explain PACs, how they work, the significance of the Citizens United decision, and how they have evolved since that ruling. I will also share some tips on identifying PACs and understanding who’s behind the money.

What Are Political Action Committees (PACs)?

Political Action Committees, commonly known as PACs, are organizations that collect contributions from members and donate those funds to:

• campaigns for or against candidates,
• ballot initiatives, and
• legislation.

PACs can be associated with businesses, labor unions, or ideological groups. They channel large sums of money into campaigns and play a pivotal role in shaping the political landscape.

When evaluating a PAC, it’s essential to look beyond the funding and consider what the PAC stands for and what (or whom) it represents. By nature, PACs are not inherently bad; they allow individuals and organizations to pool resources to support causes or candidates they believe in.

The key is understanding the PAC’s mission, goals, and the policies it promotes. A PAC that aligns with your values and advocates for issues you care about can be a powerful tool for positive change. Conversely, if a PAC supports agendas that conflict with your beliefs, it’s crucial to be aware of its influence and act accordingly.

Fun Fact: PAC Names are an Unrecognized Art Form

Political Action Committee (PAC) names are often crafted to influence public perception. They attempt to bias the audience toward a particular viewpoint or obscure the organization’s true intent.

PAC names are typically positive, patriotic, or value-driven, aiming to evoke a sense of trust or align with widely accepted ideals. For example, “Americans for Prosperity” or “Citizens for a Strong America” represent broad, public-spirited goals, even if they serve specific political or corporate interests (see more in Appendix 1 below).

On the flip side, some PACs may use names that obscure their true purpose or the specific interests they represent, making it difficult for voters to understand who is funding particular political messages. This deliberate naming strategy can be a powerful tool in shaping public opinion, as the positive or neutral connotations of a PAC’s name may lead people to support or trust the organization without fully understanding its agenda or backers.

Citizens United: The Game-Changer

Before the landmark Citizens United v. FEC decision in 2010, PACs were already influential but were subject to strict limits on how much money they could raise and spend. However, this ruling changed everything.

In 2010, the Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision fundamentally changed the campaign finance landscape.

The Supreme Court ruled that the government, the Federal Election Commission (FEC), could not limit the amount of money that corporations, including nonprofit organizations, labor unions, and other associations, could spend on political communications.

An organization can funnel unlimited money through Political Action Committees (PACs) to support or oppose a person, initiative, or legislation. The caveat is that it must do so independently and cannot coordinate directly with the candidates’ campaigns. This decision significantly expanded the financial influence that these entities could exert in the political process.

The immediate effect was the rise of Super PACs, independent expenditure—only committees that could raise and spend unlimited amounts of money to advocate for or against political candidates. Unlike regular PACs, Super PACs cannot contribute directly to candidates but can run ads, send mail, and engage in other activities to influence elections.

How Have PACs Evolved Post-Citizens United?

Since the Citizens United ruling, the influence of PACs, particularly Super PACs, has skyrocketed. These entities have become dominant in elections, often spending millions to support or oppose candidates. For example, in the 2020 election cycle, the top 10 Super PACs raised and spent over a billion dollars.

Now, let’s just take a moment to review something called Dark Money. In today’s politics, dark money refers to political spending by nonprofit organizations that are not required to disclose their donors. Dark money groups can raise and spend unlimited money to influence elections, often through advertisements and other forms of communication, without revealing where the funds originate.

This lack of transparency makes it difficult to track who is behind the political messages or how much influence specific donors have on a candidate or policy issue. Dark money is often associated with Super PACs and other political organizations that exploit loopholes in campaign finance laws to keep their funding sources hidden from public scrutiny.

This influx of money has led to concerns about the outsized influence of wealthy donors and special interest groups on American politics. Critics argue that this leads to a form of “dark money” in politics, where the actual funding sources are obscured, and the financial power of the few drowns out the interests of ordinary voters.

OpenSecrets.org is working to preserve our democracy from the overreach of PAC money. It is a nonpartisan, independent, nonprofit and the nation’s premier research group tracking money in U.S. politics and its effect on elections and public policy. Its mission is to track the money flow in American politics and provide the data and analysis to strengthen democracy. They encourage Americans to use this knowledge to create a more vibrant, representative, and accountable democracy.

Examples of PAC Money Influencing Elections

Remember how I mentioned that PACs can donate to candidates, initiatives, or legislation? Let’s look at how PACs have influenced each of these areas with some concrete examples:

Campaigns for or Against Candidates

• Restore Our Future (2012): This Super PAC was established to support Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign and spent over $142 million, primarily on attack ads against his opponent, Barack Obama. The sheer volume of spending helped shape the narrative of the 2012 election, particularly in key swing states.
• Priorities USA Action (2020): This Super PAC played a significant role in supporting Joe Biden’s presidential campaign, spending millions on ads and outreach. Their efforts were instrumental in securing key victories in battleground states like Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, contributing to Biden’s overall success.
• Senate Leadership Fund (2018): A Super PAC associated with Mitch McConnell, the Senate Leadership Fund spent over $190 million to support Republican Senate candidates. Their efforts helped secure several key Senate seats, reinforcing the GOP’s control of the Senate during that election cycle.
• Emily’s List (2018): This PAC focuses on electing pro-choice Democratic women to office. In the 2018 midterms, Emily’s List spent significant sums supporting female candidates, contributing to the record number of women elected to Congress that year. Notable successes include Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in New York and Ayanna Pressley in Massachusetts, who were part of the historic wave of women who made their mark in that election.

Ballot Initiatives

• Protect Arizona’s Future (2020): This PAC supported Proposition 208, which sought to increase taxes on the wealthy to fund education in Arizona. The PAC spent heavily on ads and grassroots efforts, contributing to the measure’s passage in a state where tax increases are typically difficult to pass.
• Californians for Justice (2020): This PAC was crucial in supporting Proposition 15 in California, which aimed to increase property taxes on commercial properties to fund public schools and local governments. Although the initiative narrowly failed, the PAC’s efforts brought significant attention and influenced the state’s ongoing debate over tax policy.
• Vote Yes on 2 (2016): In Massachusetts, this PAC supported a ballot initiative to expand charter schools statewide. Despite a well-funded campaign, the initiative ultimately failed, but the PAC’s influence sparked a statewide conversation about education reform.
• Keep Colorado Local (2016): This PAC was instrumental in defeating a ballot initiative that would have allowed liquor sales in grocery stores, arguing it would harm small businesses. The PAC’s success kept the existing regulations in place, highlighting a PAC’s influence on local issues.

Legislation

• American Beverage Association (2014): This PAC spent millions opposing soda taxes in various states, including a significant campaign against a proposed soda tax in San Francisco. While the measure failed in 2014, the PAC’s continued efforts reflect how industry groups can mobilize against legislation threatening their interests.
• National Rifle Association (2013): The NRA’s PAC, the Political Victory Fund, spent heavily influencing state and federal gun control legislation. In 2013, the PAC’s efforts helped defeat several proposed gun control measures in Congress following the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, showcasing the significant power of PACs in legislative battles.
• Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) (2017): This PAC lobbied extensively against proposed legislation aimed at reducing drug prices, particularly the “Lower Drug Costs Now Act.” Their efforts helped stall the bill in Congress, highlighting the role of PACs in shaping healthcare policy.
• Energy Transfer Partners (2016): This PAC spent heavily on influencing state legislation in North Dakota that would support the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline (see Appendix 2). The PAC’s contributions were part of a broader effort to secure favorable legislative outcomes for the energy industry at the state level.

How to Identify a PAC and Understand Who’s Behind the Money

Check the FEC Website: The Federal Election Commission (FEC) provides detailed reports on PAC contributions and expenditures. This is the most direct way to determine who funds a particular PAC and where the money goes.

Look at the PAC’s Website: Many PACs have websites outlining their mission, goals, and the candidates or causes they support. This can provide insights into their political alignment.

Follow the Money: Use resources like OpenSecrets.org to track donations and spending. This site offers comprehensive data on PACs, including donor lists and how much money is being funneled into specific races.

Be Wary of Ad Sponsorships: When you see a political ad, check the fine print at the end. It should disclose who paid for the ad. If it’s a PAC or Super PAC, a quick search can tell you more about the group’s donors and objectives.

Read the News: Major news outlets often report on the most influential PACs in an election cycle. These stories can give you a sense of the PAC’s reach and effectiveness.

Ripped from the Headlines, Was Monday’s Twitter Interview a Campaign Violation?

A Democratic-aligned Political Action Committee (PAC), End Citizens United, has filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), accusing Donald Trump, his campaign, and the social media platform X of violating federal election laws during a recent interview between Trump and Elon Musk. The interview – and I use the term broadly because it was more like a conversation – was exclusively on Twitter on Monday night, August 12^th.

The complaint alleges that the interview effectively served as a campaign event for Trump, financed by the platform, and therefore constitutes an illegal corporate contribution [violating the ban on corporate donations].

The PAC argues that this action undermines the anti-corruption goals of federal election laws [violation of anti-corruption provisions] and has called for an investigation into the matter. The complaint also notes that the interview included explicit support from Musk for Trump’s campaign, [violation of rules against express advocacy by corporations] which could set a precedent for direct corporate involvement in political campaigns.

Final Thoughts: The Role of PACs in Democracy

PACs are a powerful force in American politics, capable of shaping elections and influencing public policy. While they provide a way for groups to amplify their voices, they also raise questions about the balance of power in our democracy. As voters, staying informed about who’s funding the messages we see and hear is crucial. By understanding PACs and their impact, we can make more informed decisions at the ballot box.

To-Do List

1. Visit the FEC and OpenSecrets.org to learn more about the PACs influencing the 2024 election.
2. Share this information with friends and family to spread awareness about the role of money in politics.
3. See the Appendix below to discover the art of how a PAC is named and funded and its purpose.
4. Follow the steps above to identify and understand the PACs behind the political ads you see.
5. Stay critical and informed as you engage with political content—your vote matters!

Appendix 1: A Quick Look at Some Huge PACs

These PAC names are often designed to sound nonpartisan, public-spirited, or patriotic, which can mask their specific political agendas or the powerful interests behind them. Here’s a list of ten PAC names that appear harmless or broadly positive, along with details on who is behind them and their missions:

Americans for Prosperity	Funded primarily by the Koch brothers, Charles and David Koch.	Advocates for limited government, free markets, and lower taxes often support conservative candidates and policies.
Citizens United	Originally a conservative political organization.	Advocates for conservative candidates and issues, notably involved in the landmark Supreme Court case that allowed unlimited corporate and union spending in elections.
Patriot Majority USA	Behind It:** Linked to Democratic strategists and supported by unions.	Focuses on mobilizing voters in support of Democratic candidates and progressive causes.
American Crossroads	Founded by Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie, prominent Republican strategists.	Supports Republican candidates and conservative causes, often through large-scale advertising campaigns.
Priorities USA Action	A prominent Democratic Super PAC supported by donors like George Soros.	Supports Democratic candidates, primarily through advertising and voter outreach, focusing on defeating Republican opponents.
Club for Growth Action	Backed by the conservative economic group Club for Growth.	Promotes lower taxes, limited government, and free-market policies, often supporting conservative candidates who align with these principles.
Americans for Job Security	Funded by conservative donors and business interests.	Advocates for pro-business policies and candidates, often focusing on reducing regulations and taxes.
Restore Our Future	A Super PAC supporting Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign.	Focused on electing Mitt Romney and opposing his Democratic opponents through extensive advertising campaigns.
End Citizens United	A grassroots Democratic PAC.	Seeks to overturn the Citizens United decision and reduce money’s influence in politics, primarily by supporting Democratic candidates who advocate for campaign finance reform.
Committee for Justice and Fairness	Backed by the Democratic Governors Association (DGA).	Supports Democratic gubernatorial candidates, often through advertising that targets their Republican opponents.

Appendix 2: The Dakota Access Pipeline and What Happened Next

The situation involving Energy Transfer Partners and the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) was complex and involved multiple legal, environmental, and political battles. The primary resolution occurred through a combination of state and federal decisions.

1. State Legislation: Energy Transfer Partners successfully influenced state legislation in North Dakota that supported the pipeline’s construction. The state’s government favored the project due to its economic benefits, leading to favorable legislative outcomes for the company.
2. Federal Government Approval: Despite significant protests and legal challenges, particularly from Native American tribes like the Standing Rock Sioux, the federal government initially approved the pipeline’s construction. In January 2017, President Trump signed an executive order advancing the pipeline’s construction, reversing the previous administration’s decision to halt the project.
3. Legal Challenges: Legal challenges continued, especially concerning environmental assessments and the potential impact on tribal lands and water sources. In 2020, a federal judge ordered a more thorough environmental review and temporarily shut down the pipeline. However, the pipeline continued to operate while the legal and environmental reviews were ongoing.
4. Ongoing Disputes: Despite significant opposition from Tribes and environmental groups, on May 3, 2021, the Army Corps of Engineers announced it would keep the pipeline operational while preparing a court-ordered environmental impact statement (EIS). The pipeline still lacks an essential permit from the Corps to cross under Lake Oahe in South Dakota.

The situation exemplifies how PACs and corporate interests can heavily influence state legislation, but it also highlights the role of ongoing legal and grassroots resistance in challenging such outcomes.