Throughline (NPR) – “Why Super PACs Have More Power Than Ever in Elections”

Episode Date: February 26, 2026
Hosts: Rund Abdelfatah & Ramtin Arablouei
Key Guests: Michael Kang (Northwestern Law), Henrik Schatzinger (Ripon College), Jim Bopp (Attorney for Citizens United)

Overview

This episode explores the rise of Super PACs, how they have become dominant players in U.S. elections, and the sweeping impact of Supreme Court decisions like Citizens United (2010) and SpeechNow.org v. FEC (2010). Through a deft mix of contemporary anecdotes, legal history, and expert commentary, the episode uncovers why billionaires and ‘dark money’ now shape campaigns more than ever—even as the public widely sees unchecked spending as a danger to democracy.

Key Discussion Points

1. Modern Money in Politics: Setting the Scene

• Opening Example: Rund Abdelfatah and guests highlight Elon Musk’s $291 million support for Trump’s 2024 campaign, illustrating how billionaires now dominate campaign spending (00:16–01:26).
• Record-Breaking Spending: 2024 saw nearly $15 billion spent on elections, increasingly by a short list of ultra-rich contributors (01:26–01:51).
• Super PACs’ “Superpowers”: Since Citizens United, Super PACs have raised and spent unlimited sums, dramatically outpacing traditional campaign fundraising (05:11–05:19).

Quote:
"Super PACs did not just add money. They rewired the whole campaign ecosystem."
— Henrik Schatzinger (05:44)

2. The Long War: The History of Campaign Finance Law

[Part 1: Cat and Mouse, 08:20]

• Early 20th Century Limits: The Tillman Act (1907) banned corporate contributions after Roosevelt’s 1904 campaign took large donations in exchange for favors (10:18).
• Nixon, Watergate, and FECA: By the 1970s, scandals pushed Congress to pass the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), capping donations and mandating disclosure (08:39–11:21).
• 1974 Amendments: Added tight limits and disclosure rules to “put teeth” into campaign finance law (11:02–11:32).
• Buckley v. Valeo (1976): Challenged FECA’s limits; the Supreme Court ruled that donations can be limited but spending is protected as free speech—a major turning point (12:14–14:30).

Quote:
"The greatest campaign reform law ever enacted was the First Amendment. We rely on the proposition that good speech will drive out bad..."
— Jim Bopp (13:05)

• Soft Money Loophole: Despite reform, the appetite for campaign cash kept growing as parties and donors exploited new loopholes (15:14–15:37).
• McCain-Feingold Act (2002): Targeted “soft money” and banned corporate/unions from running certain political ads before elections (17:02–17:39).

3. Citizens United: The Case that Changed Everything

[Part 2: The Floodgates Open, 20:05]

• The Controversy: Citizens United wanted to air a critical Hillary Clinton documentary before the 2008 primary but was blocked by FEC rules (02:43–04:09).

• Jim Bopp’s Arguments:

  • Free speech should prevail over all finance limits.
  • Groups (not just individuals) need the right to pool money to compete with wealthy candidates.
  • Campaign finance laws are confusing barriers.
  • Enforcement chills democratic participation.
    (20:33–23:02)

• At the Supreme Court: The justices, especially Samuel Alito, pressed whether laws could amount to censorship—would the government ban books paid for by corporations? The government’s answers alarmed the Court and catalyzed a broader ruling (25:02–27:57).

Quote:
"Alito was kind of like a dog with a bone. He just won't let go of this point, so he keeps going after Stewart."
— Michael Kang (26:09)

• The Decision: In 2010, the Court ruled 5–4 that restricting independent political spending by corporations (and, by extension, unions and groups) is unconstitutional (30:53).

Quote:
"Political speech is at the heart of the First Amendment, and the identity of this speaker does not remove that protection."
— Henrik Schatzinger (30:53)

• Immediate Impact:
  • "Floodgates" predicted to open to corporate money, but in reality, it was mega-donors and billionaires who surged in influence (31:32–32:41).
  • Many companies shunned direct political giving to avoid alienating customers.

4. SpeechNow.org v. FEC and the Birth of Super PACs

• Legal Sequel: A little-noticed D.C. Circuit case held that, post–Citizens United, any group could spend unlimited amounts; this ruling officially created “Super PACs” (33:17–34:45).
• Explosion: By 2010 midterms, 80 Super PACs were active; spending broke all previous records (35:06).

5. The Super PAC Era: How It Changed Politics

[Part 3: Whispering Through a Megaphone, 36:54]

• Super PACs revive 'Zombie' Campaigns: Candidates once doomed by lack of funds (e.g., Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich in 2012) could now survive indefinitely as long as a single billionaire funded them (38:20–39:27).
• Both Sides Join: After resisting, even Obama’s team embraced Super PACs in 2012. From then on, the money race was fully normalized (39:50–40:59).

Quote:
"This was the moment of normalization. It signaled that Democrats couldn't afford to take the moral high ground. This unilateral disarmament was basically political suicide."
— Henrik Schatzinger (40:43)

• Dark Money and Donor Concealment: Creative channeling through multiple organizations lets donors avoid detection.

  • “Financial pinball” (41:55)
  • Loopholes mean the public often doesn’t know who truly funds ads (41:58–42:01).

• Super PACs Rewrite Campaign Operations: They provide an “uncapped channel” for rich donors to run sophisticated campaign operations outside formal candidate control (42:01–43:08).

6. Legal Loopholes: “Whispering through a Megaphone”

• Red Boxing: Candidates publicly signal messaging for super PACs via their own websites (43:46–43:59).
• Silent B-roll: Campaigns post unbranded, silent footage for PACs to use (44:09–44:13).
• Public Memos and Coordinated Research: Direct hints via opposition research or policy backgrounders posted online (44:13–44:23).
• Delayed Announcements: Potential candidates build PAC infrastructure first, then formally launch campaigns (44:23–45:03).
• Revolving Door: Former campaign insiders join Super PACs after a “cooling off” period (45:03–45:11).
• Pseudo-fundraisers: Candidates headline events but technically don’t “ask” for money—the PAC collects after they leave (45:23–45:34).

Quote:
"You can frame public coordination as how campaigns whisper through a megaphone by winking in plain sight."
— Henrik Schatzinger (43:27)

7. The Local Fallout & National Fears

• Super PACs Move Local: Outsized effects in school board, mayoral, and city council races, where a few hundred thousand dollars can swamp candidate fundraising (46:11–47:04).
• Media Vacuum: With local journalism in decline, ads funded by PACs often become the sole narrators of campaigns (46:59–47:18).

8. The Debate: Upsides and Downsides of Super PACs

• Upside (Theoretical): More “speech” and information for voters; more access for outsider candidates.
• Realities/Downside:
  • Richest donors and candidates gain outsize influence.
  • Most ads are not truly informative.
  • Money may make politics more negative and less representative.
  • Both progressives and conservatives agree: unchecked money decreases trust in democracy (47:25–50:03).

Quote:
"There is this kind of disjunction... between where the law sort of centers in terms of the debate and really kind of the political case for campaign finance reform."
— Michael Kang (49:17)

9. Can Anything Be Done?

• Entrenched by the Supreme Court: Major change would require a constitutional amendment or new Supreme Court rulings (50:15).
• Local Innovation: Possible remedies:
  • Donor disclosure laws (e.g., “top three donors” on ads in San Francisco).
  • Public financing vouchers (Seattle).
  • Support for local journalism (51:04).

Quote:
"You cannot buy yourself to a win. It just doesn't work that way. Ultimately, voters are not stupid if they have strong convictions."
— Henrik Schatzinger (51:04)

10. Existential Questions

• Threat to Democracy: Both guests and hosts worry that “money in politics” (and super PACs especially) erodes public trust and the belief that everyone has an equal voice (52:07–53:13).

Quote:
"I think it is corrosive to the confidence Americans have about the way the country works... Money kind of goes in one direction. In campaign finance, it's generally been more and more rather than less."
— Michael Kang (52:14–53:13)

Memorable Moments & Quotes with Timestamps

• Elon Musk’s $291M campaign spending [00:38]
• “Super PACs did not just add money. They rewired the whole campaign ecosystem.” — Henrik Schatzinger [05:44]
• Alito challenges book bans in Citizens United oral arguments [25:02–26:34]
• Obama rebukes Supreme Court on Citizens United in State of the Union; Alito mouths "not true" [37:20–37:40]
• “Zombie” candidacies funded by a single billionaire—Newt Gingrich’s 2012 campaign [39:06–39:27]
• Dark money and “financial pinball” [41:55]
• Legal loopholes: “whispering through a megaphone” [43:27]
• Local impact: super PACs become "narrators" where local news has died [47:04]

Conclusion

The episode concludes by noting how deeply the landscape has shifted in just a generation: Super PACs and “dark money” now define American campaigning. Attempts to curb the flood—through Congress or courts—face high hurdles, and meaningful change may depend on local innovations. Meanwhile, faith in equal democracy continues to erode.

Final Reflection:
"We've only opened more doors to more money, certainly for the last 30 years... Money kind of goes in one direction. In campaign finance, it's generally been more and more rather than less."
— Michael Kang (53:13)

This episode offers a brisk, essential history for anyone curious about how we got to the era of Super PACs—and why the story is far from over.