Fifteen years have passed since the landmark Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission fundamentally altered the landscape of political financing. This ruling opened the floodgates for unlimited campaign contributions from corporations, unions, and wealthy individuals, significantly impacting elections and obscuring the sources of these funds.

The pivotal Citizens United ruling, issued on January 21, 2010, overturned a key section of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act that barred independent spending by corporations and unions. Shortly after, in SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission, the Court deemed limits on contributions to independent expenditure committees unconstitutional, paving the way for super PACs that could accept unlimited donations for political activities, unlinked to specific campaigns.

The effects of these decisions are evident in election spending data collected over the past 15 years. In stark contrast to the 2008 election cycle, where outside spending amounted to $574 million, that figure jumped to nearly $1.3 billion in 2012. By 2020, outside spending soared to $3.3 billion, with projections nearing $4.5 billion for the 2024 elections, largely driven by super PAC expenditures.

Super PACs, which spent a mere $62.6 million in 2010, rapidly escalated their influence in federal elections. By 2012, expenditures by super PACs and their hybrids totaled $622.7 million, ballooning to over $4.1 billion by 2024. This surge underscores the evolving dynamics of campaign financing and the pivotal role of these committees.

The increasing clout of wealthy individuals in elections has also been pronounced. Prior to Citizens United, the top 100 individual donors contributed $80.9 million, representing 1.5 percent of total federal election spending. This figure significantly rose, with these donors now accounting for 14 to 16 percent of annual expenditures. In 2024, the top contributor, Elon Musk, alone gave $280 million, highlighting the growing dominance of affluent donors in shaping election outcomes.

However, not all funds are transparently disclosed. Politically active nonprofits, classified as 501(c)(4) groups, are not required to reveal their donors and can channel unlimited funds to super PACs. This area of funding, often dubbed “dark money,” has become increasingly influential. While contributions from these groups peaked at $359 million in 2012, they surged to $734 million in 2020 and may reach $1.4 billion in 2024, pending final reports.

Unless significant reforms are enacted to regulate campaign donations and enhance transparency, the future of electoral funding appears poised for further escalation in costs and decreased clarity regarding financial sources.