When it Comes to Super PACs, Size May Not Matter

The year 2016 marks the first open-seat presidential contest since the Supreme Court carved a gaping hole in U.S. campaign finance regulations. And as "good government" reformers feared following the 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling, the race has indeed drawn a flood of cash to the airwaves. But so far, the special interests and fat cats behind those dollars don't seem to be shaping the election the way many anticipated.

According to reports filed to the Federal Election Commission in 2015, outside groups known as super PACs spent more than $110 million on advertising, mailings and phone banking to support (or oppose) chosen candidates—political activity that's technically known as "independent expenditures." Of that, $103 million came from super PACs aligned with Republican presidential candidates, including a whopping $46 million from Right to Rise, the committee supporting former Florida Governor Jeb Bush.

Yet, as plenty of analysts have noted, Right to Rise's spending hasn't gained Bush support—in fact, his polling has gone steadily downward since launching his campaign in June. Recent national polls have him hovering in the low single digits in the Republican field, significantly behind current front-runners billionaire Donald Trump and Texas Senator Ted Cruz. Other GOP candidates with well-funded super PACs, like Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, have already bowed out of the race. All told, super PACs spent $15 million in 2015 advertising for presidential candidates who are no longer running.

Those who want to rein in money in politics aren't celebrating, however. "I don't take any solace in the fact that there are some candidates who aren't polling very well today who have benefited from super PACs," says Paul Ryan, deputy executive director at the Campaign Legal Center. When it comes to Bush, for example, Ryan points out that "it's quite possible he would have been out long ago if it were not for his super PAC." And two other leading candidates—Cruz and Florida Senator Marco Rubio—both have active super PACs (and for Rubio, a separate nonprofit group known as a 501(c)4) that could help propel them to victory in 2016. At this point, the race "has less to do with resources and more to do with general viability," says Sheila Krumholz, executive director at the watchdog group Center for Responsive Politics. But she expects that to change in 2016. "These outside groups really show their value in a close race."

On the Democratic side, front-runner Hillary Clinton and Martin O'Malley have affiliated super PACs, but neither has spent much on advertising, mail or phone campaigns thus far. The former first lady and secretary of state is, however, attracting far and away the most advertising dollars from opposing groups—$4.5 million from the Republican Party and Tea Party–aligned committees attacking her campaign. Vermont Independent Senator Bernie Sanders has asked his supporters not to form a super PAC, though the labor union National Nurses United hasn't played along, and is doing some advertising on his behalf. And Krumholz thinks Democrat-backed super PAC spending will pick up mightily in a general election, which is bound to be more heated than the party's primary. "I doubt once we enter the final heat of the race there will be much daylight" between the two parties, she says.

According to an analysis released December 15 by the Wesleyan Media Project and the Center for Responsive Politics, the number of ads aired by outside groups in the presidential campaign—super PACs as well as advocacy organizations organized under the 501(c)4 and 527 sections of the tax code—is up 70 percent compared to 2011, the comparable time period in the 2012 presidential race. Overall, the report found super PACs were behind 81 percent of the ads run in the Republican presidential primary through December 9.

But according to Ryan, the biggest shift is that super PACs are "not only taking over the TV campaign, but they're also mounting significant ground games" in support of candidates. He singled out former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina's committee, CARLY for America, which "seems to be staging all of her campaign events." Another super PAC supporting Clinton, Correct the Record, is operating a rapid response media operation on her behalf.

Political watchers won't get a full glimpse of super PACs' activities on those fronts until the end of January, when the committees have to file reports on their fundraising and spending from July 1 to December 31, 2015. Separately, all political action committees have to file reports documenting their "independent expenditures" within days of running any qualifying advertising, mail or phone campaigns. That's how we can already roughly tally super PAC ad spending in 2015.

But some campaigns are making it extra hard to track the outside groups supporting them. The main vehicle for pro-Rubio advertising thus far is a 501(c)4 group, Conservative Solutions Project. These so-called "social welfare" groups are called "dark money" committees by critics because they do not have to disclose their donors or their spending. But television ad buying data offers some clues. According to a November 5 Associated Press report, the group had already spent $8 million "on Rubio-centric commercials" on radio and television through that week. Critics, including the Campaign Legal Center, say that violates tax law that bars those types of groups from operating on behalf of a single candidate. Other Republican campaigns also have associated 501(c)4 groups but they haven't engaged in similar levels of advertising.

Ryan is not optimistic that his or other watchdogs' efforts to halt alleged campaign finance violations will have any impact on the 2016 race. "It has historically taken the FEC years to resolve complaints," he notes. "The Campaign Legal Center still has complaints pending that we filed in 2011." In other words, there's little to deter political campaigns from pushing the boundaries of campaign finance law. And that means outside group activity in the presidential race is only likely to expand—particularly on the Republican side—as the election advances into 2016. "Presidential candidates have effectively outsourced their campaigns to super PACs and dark money groups," laments Ryan. The next year will test whether that's a winning strategy.