Citizens United Supreme Court Ruling
To determine how much money has entered US political campaigns since the Citizens United decision. This information will give insight into the effect of the Citizens United decision.
Outcome and Impact of Citizens United Decision
- On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court reversed a century-old finance restriction in the case "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission." This decision "enabled corporations and other outside groups to spend unlimited funds on elections."
- According to this article, a significant outcome of the court ruling has been the creation of super political action committees (super PACs). These "are organizations that raise and spend money for campaigns that support or oppose political candidates, legislation, or ballot initiatives."
- Prior to the ruling, traditional PACs had contribution limits "both in terms of what they can receive from individuals and what they can give to candidates." After the ruling, "outside groups could accept unlimited contributions from both individual donors and corporations" as long as this was not given directly to the candidates. These outside groups were labeled as super PACs and were "permitted to spend money on independently produced ads and on other communications that promote or attack specific candidates."
- While super PACs are required to disclose their donors, these donors can include "dark money groups." Dark money is defined as "election-related spending where the source is secret." This often comes from "nonprofits that are not required to disclose their donors."
Spending by PACs
- In 2010, there were 83 super PACs that spent $62,641,448 on elections. Of this amount, $24.6 million went to liberal candidates and $58.6 million went to conservative candidates.
- In 2012, there were 1,275 super PACs that raised $828,980,572 and spent $609,936,792 on elections. Of this amount, $195.9 million went to liberal candidates and $407 million went to conservative candidates.
- In 2014, there were 1,282 super PACs that raised $695,579,901 and spent $345,110,359 on elections. Of this amount, $183.1 million went to liberal candidates and $150.7 million went to conservative candidates.
- In 2016, there were 2,393 super PACs that raised $1,790,569,447 and spent $1,066,914,448 on elections. Of this amount, $442.3 million went to liberal candidates and $612 million went to conservative candidates.
- In 2018, there were 2,395 super PACs that raised $1,567,304,432 and spent $822,068,922 on elections. Of this amount, $349.3 million went to liberal candidates and $436.9 million went to conservative candidates.
Total Spending by Outside Sources
Cost of Federal Elections
- The cost of congressional elections has increased throughout the years. In 2008, the total cost of congressional races was $2,485,952,737. In 2010, this was $3,631,712,836; in 2012 this was $3,664,141,430; in 2014 this was $3,845,393,700; in 2016 this was $4,124,304,874; in 2018 this was $5,725,183,133.
- In 2004, the total cost of presidential races was $1,910,230,862; in 2008 this was $2,799,728,146; in 2012 this was $2,621,415,792; in 2016 this was $2,386,876,712.
Summary of Findings
- During the initial hour of research, we focused on understanding the Citizens United decision and what changes this ruling brought about.
- It was possible to determine the effect of the decision and show in monetary terms how outside contributions have increased.
- Also, the cost of federal elections has been provided for both congressional and presidential elections.
Proposed next steps:
You need to be the project owner to select a next step.
Wonder can continue the research and determine what thought leaders think of the Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. We would identify the opinions of 3-4 thought leaders and mention how they view the Citizens United decision and what its impact has been.
We can also do research on 2-3 other Supreme Court rulings that have had or will have an impact on federal elections. For each, we will describe the ruling and the impact it has had on elections.