PACs and Super PACs

Traditional PACs

Political Action Committees (PACs) have existed since the 1940s. They pool contributions from members — typically employees of a company, union members, or issue advocates — and donate to candidates and parties. PACs face strict limits: they can accept up to $5,000 per individual per year and give up to $5,000 per candidate per election.

Super PACs

Super PACs, enabled by Citizens United and SpeechNow (2010), are fundamentally different. They can raise unlimited amounts from individuals, corporations, and unions, and spend unlimited amounts on elections. The only restriction is that they cannot donate directly to candidates or coordinate with campaigns.

In practice, Super PACs are often run by close associates of the candidates they support, and the 'no coordination' rule is widely seen as a legal fiction. Candidates routinely appear at Super PAC fundraisers and publicly signal their preferences for how the money should be spent.

The Vehicles at a Glance

The key dividing line is the trade-off Citizens United created: a committee may have either the power to give money straight to candidates or the power to raise and spend unlimited sums — but a pure Super PAC accepts the no-coordination rule in exchange for the unlimited spigot.

Worked Example: The Single-Candidate Super PAC

The clearest illustration of how blurry 'independence' really is came in the 2016 Republican primary. Right to Rise USA, the Super PAC backing Jeb Bush, raised more than $100 million — much of it before Bush formally declared his candidacy, exploiting the window in which a not-yet-candidate can legally coordinate freely with a Super PAC. Once Bush declared, that door officially closed, but the strategy and staff were already aligned.

The punchline is instructive: despite the record haul, Bush won only a handful of delegates and dropped out early in 2016. Super PAC millions can flood the airwaves, but they could not manufacture voter enthusiasm — a reminder that unlimited money is necessary for competitiveness but far from sufficient for victory.