Citizens United and the Rise of Dark Money
What if your vote mattered less than a billionaire’s donation?
That’s not just a cynical punchline—it’s the real-world result of a decade and a half of erosion in campaign finance law. The turning point? A 2010 Supreme Court decision that changed American politics forever: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
Since then, the rise of “dark money”—undisclosed, often untraceable political spending—has made it harder than ever for voters to know who’s really behind the ads, the issues, and even the candidates themselves.
Before 2010: Limits, Loopholes, and a Fragile Balance
For much of modern history, federal campaign finance law tried to strike a balance between free speech and fair elections. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (also known as McCain-Feingold) prohibited corporations and unions from using treasury funds to finance “electioneering communications” close to an election. It also strengthened disclosure requirements.
It wasn’t perfect—wealthy individuals and PACs still held disproportionate influence—but it offered some transparency. You could trace much of the money, and there were caps on how much different entities could spend directly or in coordination with campaigns.
That all changed in 2010.
Citizens United: The Floodgates Open
In Citizens United v. FEC, the Supreme Court ruled 5–4 that corporations and unions could spend unlimited funds on independent political expenditures, under the First Amendment. In other words, money = speech—and corporations have the same speech rights as people when it comes to politics.
The Court drew a legal line: while direct donations to campaigns could still be limited, “independent” spending—that is, spending not coordinated with a candidate—could not. This distinction became a massive loophole.
Within months, so-called “Super PACs” were born: entities that could raise and spend unlimited sums, as long as they didn’t “coordinate” with candidates. Meanwhile, certain nonprofits, especially 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations, didn’t even have to disclose their donors.
Enter Dark Money
“Dark money” refers to political spending by groups that aren’t required to reveal their funding sources. That means voters can be bombarded with political ads—often highly targeted, emotional, or misleading—without ever knowing who’s paying for them.
Here’s how it often works:
A wealthy donor gives to a 501(c)(4) nonprofit like Americans for Prosperity.
That nonprofit gives to a Super PAC.
The Super PAC runs attack ads in a tight Senate race, helping swing the outcome.
The donor’s name never appears in public records.
This isn’t just a theoretical concern. In 2006, dark money made up less than 2% of outside spending. By 2012, it was over 40%. According to OpenSecrets, more than $1 billion in dark money has been spent since Citizens United—and that’s just what we can partially trace.
Impact on Elections—and Democracy
Dark money doesn’t just influence general elections. It’s increasingly used to dominate primaries, where lower turnout and more ideological voters make it easier to sway the outcome. Candidates seen as too moderate—or too independent—often find themselves outspent by anonymous attack ads from outside groups.
It’s also being used in judicial races. In state supreme court elections, where most voters know little about the candidates, even a modest dark money campaign can flip the outcome—potentially changing how state laws are interpreted for years to come.
Meanwhile, everyday voters are left in the dark. When you see an ad from “Americans for Truth and Prosperity” or “Citizens for a Strong Future,” what does that even mean? Who’s behind it? What do they want? Increasingly, we don’t know—and that’s by design.
The Debate: Free Speech or Hidden Power?
Supporters of Citizens United argue that money is speech, and that more voices—even corporate ones—enrich the political conversation. But critics say it creates an uneven playing field, where the wealthiest players drown out everyone else and obscure the true sources of power.
Efforts to reverse or mitigate the ruling have repeatedly failed. The DISCLOSE Act, which would require dark money groups to reveal their major donors, has been blocked in Congress multiple times. Some states have attempted transparency laws, but legal challenges and lax enforcement limit their effectiveness.
What’s Next?
The rise of dark money has changed not just how campaigns are run, but how power is wielded behind the scenes. And this influence doesn’t end on Election Day.
In Part 2 of this series, we’ll follow the money from the campaign trail to the Capitol, exploring how lobbying—not voting—often shapes the laws that govern our lives.
Because in Washington, it’s not just about who wins the race—it’s about who writes the rules.