Super PACs & Dark Money

$3.2B

527 · Raised $3.2B

ActBlue is the Democratic small-dollar fundraising behemoth — processing $3.2 billion in 2024, more than any PAC, super PAC, or party committee. When Joe Biden dropped out of the presidential race and Kamala Harris entered, ActBlue processed over $100 million in 24 hours — the single largest burst of small-dollar political fundraising in history, demonstrating both the platform's technical capacity and the intensity of Democratic grassroots energy. Founded in 2004 as a nonprofit, ActBlue democratized political fundraising by making it trivially easy for any Democrat to accept small-dollar donations online. Before ActBlue, small-dollar fundraising required expensive direct mail campaigns and phone banks. ActBlue reduced the transaction cost of political giving to a few clicks, creating a revolution in how Democratic campaigns are funded. The platform's success inspired WinRed, its Republican counterpart, though ActBlue maintains significant advantages in processing volume and donor base size. ActBlue's "tip" system has drawn criticism — the platform suggests donors add a tip to ActBlue itself when making contributions, and the suggested tip amounts can be confusing for donors who may not realize the tip goes to the platform rather than to their chosen candidate. This system generates significant revenue for ActBlue's operations but has been criticized as misleading. Republicans have alleged that ActBlue enables "smurfing" — the practice of breaking up large donations into many small donations attributed to different donors to evade contribution limits. GOP operatives have pointed to patterns in ActBlue's donation data that they say suggest manufactured small-dollar contributions, though independent analyses have not confirmed systematic fraud. The allegations have led to congressional scrutiny and calls for ActBlue to implement stricter donor verification. ActBlue's centrality to Democratic politics creates both a strength and a vulnerability. The platform's processing of $3.2 billion means that virtually every Democrat in America fundraises through a single technology platform. This centralization enables remarkable efficiency — one platform, one donor database, one processing system — but also means that any technical failure, legal challenge, or political controversy affecting ActBlue would ripple across the entire Democratic fundraising ecosystem.

$2.5B

527 · Raised $2.5B

WinRed is the Republican Party's small-dollar fundraising platform — processing $2.5 billion in 2024 to become one of the largest political money conduits in American history. Built in 2019 as the GOP's answer to ActBlue, WinRed processes donations from millions of small Republican donors and passes them through to candidates, PACs, and party committees, taking a processing fee that funds its own operations. WinRed's most significant controversy is its use of pre-checked recurring donation boxes — a design choice that led to thousands of donors, many of them elderly, making repeated donations they didn't intend. The New York Times documented cases of donors losing significant portions of their savings through accidental recurring donations, with some supporters donating thousands of dollars when they intended to give once. The pre-checked boxes were buried in fine print, and the refund process was deliberately cumbersome. This aggressive design — essentially tricking supporters into donating more than they intended — generated additional revenue but also generated refund requests that sometimes exceeded donations in specific periods. Trump's campaign was the primary beneficiary of WinRed's processing, raising hundreds of millions through the platform with fundraising emails that often used urgent, fear-based messaging. The combination of emotional appeals and pre-checked recurring donation boxes created a system optimized for extracting maximum money from the most passionate and least sophisticated donors — a practice critics called predatory fundraising. WinRed's processing fees — a percentage of each transaction plus per-transaction charges — generate significant revenue for the platform itself. These fees eat into the money that actually reaches candidates, meaning that a portion of every small-dollar donation goes to the platform rather than the candidate the donor intended to support. The platform's fee structure is less transparent than ActBlue's, and its operations are less scrutinized because it is structured as a for-profit company rather than a nonprofit. The platform processes donations for virtually every Republican candidate and committee in America, making it critical infrastructure for the Republican Party. This centralization creates both efficiency (one platform for all GOP fundraising) and risk (a single point of failure for Republican small-dollar operations).

$320.0M

hybrid · Raised $350.0M

Future Forward PAC holds a distinction that undermines Democratic credibility on campaign finance: it is the largest dark money vehicle in the 2024 election cycle, receiving approximately $200 million through Future Forward USA Action, its 501(c)(4) arm that is not required to disclose its donors. This means that the majority of the largest pro-Democratic super PAC's funding is completely untraceable — making it darker than most Republican dark money operations that Democrats routinely criticize. The PAC's known donors include Dustin Moskovitz (Facebook co-founder, $25 million), Reid Hoffman (LinkedIn co-founder, $10 million), and Michael Bloomberg ($15 million), but these disclosed donations represent less than half of the total funding. The $200 million flowing through the 501(c)(4) arm could come from anyone — individuals, corporations, or even foreign nationals laundering money through American intermediaries — and the public will never know. Future Forward spent $320 million on the 2024 presidential race, primarily on television, streaming, and digital advertising supporting first Biden and then Harris after Biden's withdrawal. The rapid pivot from Biden to Harris required last-minute strategy changes that tested the PAC's operational capacity. Despite the massive spend, the campaign failed — Harris lost — raising uncomfortable questions about whether super PAC spending translates into electoral success. The PAC's connection to Silicon Valley's Democratic donors makes it a vehicle for tech industry influence in Democratic politics. The same tech billionaires who fund Future Forward have business interests affected by Democratic policy — antitrust enforcement, AI regulation, tax policy, and labor law. When their preferred presidential candidate owes their campaign infrastructure to tech billionaire funding, the leverage is implicit even if never explicitly exercised.

$275.0M

super_pac · Raised $300.0M

MAGA Inc. was the largest pro-Trump super PAC in the 2024 cycle, raising $300 million and serving as the primary television advertising vehicle for Trump's campaign. The PAC's operations were closely aligned with Trump's inner circle, with strategic decisions coordinated through shared consultants and advisors — raising perennial questions about the legal firewall between super PACs and campaigns that Citizens United theoretically requires. Timothy Mellon, the reclusive banking fortune heir, was the PAC's dominant donor at $200 million — including a single $50 million check written the day after Trump's criminal conviction in the Manhattan hush money trial. The timing was unmistakable: Mellon's donation was a direct response to the conviction, sending a message that the criminal justice system's actions would be answered with overwhelming financial force. Mellon, whose autobiography reportedly contained passages describing Black Americans as "bred to be slaves" and characterizing social programs as modern plantations, has become one of the most significant political donors in American history while maintaining almost complete anonymity — he gives no interviews and makes no public appearances. Ike Perlmutter, the former Marvel Entertainment chairman and Trump's informal veterans affairs advisor, contributed $15 million. Perlmutter's influence during Trump's first term was notable: despite holding no government position, he reportedly influenced VA policy and personnel decisions from his Mar-a-Lago perch, where he was a regular presence. The PAC spent over $150 million on television advertising and $60 million on digital advertising, making it one of the largest ad buyers in the 2024 cycle. Its strategic decisions — which markets to target, what messages to emphasize — were closely coordinated with Trump's campaign through shared pollsters and consultants, operating in the legal gray area that defines modern super PAC politics. Chris LaCivita, Trump's campaign co-manager, had previously worked for MAGA Inc., creating an institutional memory that facilitated coordination even as formal legal walls were maintained.

$230.0M

super_pac · Raised $250.0M

The Senate Leadership Fund is Mitch McConnell's most enduring legacy — a $250 million super PAC that has become the dominant vehicle for Republican Senate spending and a monument to McConnell's philosophy that money is speech and more money is better speech. Built by McConnell and his allies over nearly a decade, the PAC has been the financial backbone of Republican Senate campaigns in every competitive race since its founding. Ken Griffin, the Citadel hedge fund founder and the wealthiest man in Florida, is the PAC's anchor donor at $30 million. Griffin's financial interests — hedge fund regulation, capital gains taxation, and financial market structure — are directly affected by the senators the PAC helps elect. Stephen Schwarzman of Blackstone ($10 million) and Paul Singer of Elliott Management ($5 million) round out the Wall Street triumvirate that funds Republican Senate campaigns. This concentration of financial industry money creates a Senate caucus that is structurally aligned with Wall Street's interests. The PAC operates alongside One Nation, its 501(c)(4) dark money arm, which provides additional untraceable funding for "issue advertising" that conveniently appears in competitive Senate races. One Nation can accept unlimited, anonymous donations and spend them on ads that influence elections without disclosing its donors — the exact type of dark money that McConnell spent his career protecting by fighting every campaign finance reform proposal. SLF's 2024 cycle was one of its most successful: the PAC invested heavily in Ohio (Bernie Moreno), Montana (Tim Sheehy), and West Virginia (Jim Justice), all of which flipped from Democratic to Republican, giving the GOP a Senate majority. The $35-40 million invested in individual races demonstrates the PAC's ability to make or break Senate campaigns — no Republican can win a competitive Senate race without SLF support, giving McConnell's network effective veto power over the Republican Senate caucus. McConnell's genius was understanding that controlling the money that elects senators gives you power over those senators once they arrive in Washington. The PAC creates a dependency relationship: senators who win with SLF money know they'll need SLF money again in six years, creating incentives to align with McConnell's priorities. This financial leverage, more than any ideological argument, explains McConnell's iron grip on the Republican Senate caucus for over a decade.

$220.0M

super_pac · Raised $250.0M

America PAC is Elon Musk's personal political vehicle for backing Donald Trump in 2024, and it represents the most direct donor-to-government-power pipeline in modern American history. Musk personally funded virtually the entire $250 million raised by the PAC, making it the largest single-donor super PAC supporting a presidential candidate. Unlike traditional super PACs that focus on television advertising, America PAC invested primarily in voter turnout operations — door-to-door canvassing, digital outreach, and ground game infrastructure in swing states — effectively replacing the Republican National Committee's traditional field operations. The PAC's most controversial activity was a $1 million daily lottery for registered voters in swing states. Musk personally announced the giveaways on X (formerly Twitter), which he owns, creating a promotional channel worth billions in free media exposure. The Department of Justice warned that the lottery might violate federal laws against paying people to register to vote, but no charges were filed before the election. Legal scholars debated whether the lottery's structure — technically requiring signing a petition rather than registering — was a legitimate loophole or a brazen violation of election law. Now that Trump has won and Musk co-chairs DOGE, the America PAC spending represents something unprecedented: a quarter-billion-dollar political investment that resulted in the donor receiving direct government power. Musk now oversees federal agencies that regulate his companies (Tesla, SpaceX, Neuralink, xAI), award his companies billions in contracts, and determine the regulatory framework for his business empire. Every dollar spent through America PAC can be traced to a business interest that Musk now has the government power to advance. This is not merely access or influence — it is the purchase of government authority itself.

$200.0M

super_pac · Raised $220.0M

Senate Majority PAC is the Democratic Party's primary Senate spending vehicle, aligned with Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and designed to be the mirror image of McConnell's Senate Leadership Fund. With $220 million raised and $200 million spent in 2024, SMP was one of the largest PACs in the cycle — yet despite this massive investment, Democrats lost their Senate majority, raising uncomfortable questions about whether super PAC spending can overcome unfavorable political environments. The PAC operates alongside Majority Forward, its 501(c)(4) dark money arm, which provided approximately $70 million in untraceable funding. Like its Republican counterpart's One Nation, Majority Forward allows wealthy Democratic donors to influence elections anonymously, creating the same dark money dynamics that Democrats publicly criticize. The hypocrisy is structural: both parties have built parallel dark money machines while publicly calling for campaign finance reform. SMP's 2024 spending reveals the brutal math of Senate elections. The PAC invested $40 million in Ohio trying to save Sherrod Brown, $35 million in Montana defending Jon Tester, and $30 million supporting Ruben Gallego in Arizona. Brown and Tester both lost despite being incumbents with strong personal brands and massive PAC support, while Gallego won in Arizona. The losses in Ohio and Montana — despite $75 million in combined outside spending — suggest that in hostile political environments, even unlimited money cannot overcome structural disadvantages. The PAC's donor base is more diversified than some Republican super PACs, drawing from Democratic mega-donors across tech, entertainment, finance, and labor. However, the $70 million through Majority Forward means that a significant portion of its funding comes from anonymous sources. This anonymity undermines the PAC's ability to claim democratic legitimacy — when voters can't know who is funding the ads they see, the concept of informed citizenship is compromised regardless of which party benefits.

$180.0M

dark_money · Raised $200.0M

Marble Freedom Trust is the largest dark money vehicle in American history and the centerpiece of Leonard Leo's network for reshaping the federal judiciary. The trust received a single $1.6 billion donation from Barre Seid — an electronics manufacturing billionaire — in 2020, the largest known dark money donation ever made. Leo, the Federalist Society co-chairman who is credited with engineering the conservative Supreme Court majority, uses the trust to fund a network of 30+ interlocking conservative organizations that collectively shape judicial nominations, legal policy, and conservative governance. As a 501(c)(4), Marble Freedom Trust has zero transparency requirements. It never has to disclose its donors (beyond what was revealed through investigative journalism), never has to detail its spending beyond broad categories, and operates with a level of opacity that would be illegal for any political committee. The $1.6 billion from Seid was structured as a donation of his entire company (Tripp Lite) to the trust before the company was sold for $1.6 billion, allowing Seid to avoid approximately $400 million in capital gains taxes — meaning American taxpayers effectively subsidized the largest dark money donation in history. Leo personally earns $8 million or more per year in consulting fees from the trust through his firm CRC Advisors. This creates a remarkable arrangement: Leo raises money for a trust, directs how the trust spends its money, and pays himself millions from the trust's funds — all without meaningful outside oversight. The Senate Finance Committee has investigated the trust's operations, but as a 501(c)(4), Marble Freedom Trust has no legal obligation to cooperate. The trust distributes hundreds of millions to organizations in Leo's network: the Judicial Crisis Network (now the Concord Fund), the 85 Fund, the Rule of Law Trust, and dozens of other entities that fund judicial confirmation campaigns, conservative legal education, state policy organizations, and media operations. These organizations share addresses, staff, and funding sources, creating an interlocking web that is difficult to map and impossible to fully trace. The network's influence on the federal judiciary is unmatched: six of the nine current Supreme Court justices were supported by organizations funded through Leo's network. Marble Freedom Trust represents the apex of dark money in American politics. A single donor gave $1.6 billion, received a massive tax benefit for doing so, and that money is now being used to reshape the American legal system through organizations that never have to tell the public where their money comes from or exactly how they spend it. This is the system working exactly as designed — not by the Founders, but by the lawyers and operatives who exploited nonprofit tax law to create a parallel political system beyond democratic accountability.

$180.0M

dark_money · Raised $200.0M

Americans for Prosperity is the Koch network's 501(c)(4) advocacy arm — the largest dark money organization in conservative politics and, functionally, a shadow political party that operates year-round in 35+ states with paid staff and permanent infrastructure. Unlike most political organizations that ramp up during election cycles and go dormant between them, AFP maintains a permanent organizing presence, employing hundreds of paid staff who do year-round advocacy on Koch network priorities: tax cuts, deregulation, fossil fuel policy, school choice, and opposition to government healthcare programs. AFP's $200 million+ budget makes it larger than many state political party operations. Its state chapters have their own directors, field staff, and volunteer networks. AFP's grassroots events, town halls, and legislative campaigns create an organized constituency for Koch priorities that can be mobilized for elections, legislative fights, or regulatory comments on demand. This permanent infrastructure is AFP's most valuable asset — it creates the appearance of grassroots demand for policies that primarily benefit Koch Industries and its donor network. As a 501(c)(4), AFP keeps its donors completely anonymous. The $200 million+ that flows through AFP each year comes from the Koch donor network — approximately 700 wealthy individuals who attend biannual summits and collectively pledge hundreds of millions — but their identities are legally protected. This anonymity means that the single largest organized political force in conservative politics operates entirely beyond public accountability for its funding sources. AFP's policy priorities align remarkably closely with Koch Industries' business interests. Deregulation benefits Koch's refining and chemical operations. Tax cuts reduce Koch Industries' tax burden (the 2017 TCJA saved Koch an estimated $1.4 billion annually). Opposition to climate regulation protects Koch's fossil fuel business. Opposition to labor unions weakens the workforce that could demand higher wages from Koch's 120,000 employees. While AFP frames these positions as principled libertarianism, critics argue they are corporate self-interest disguised as ideology. The organization's decision to initially oppose Trump in 2024 — backing Nikki Haley in the primary through its super PAC sibling AFP Action — and then pivot to supporting him demonstrated the pragmatic limits of AFP's ideological principles. When forced to choose between purity and power, AFP chose power, recognizing that a Republican administration aligned with Koch priorities on taxes and deregulation was more valuable than ideological consistency on trade, immigration, or executive power.

$165.0M

super_pac · Raised $180.0M

The Congressional Leadership Fund is the House Republican leadership super PAC — the fundraising machine that new House GOP members must pay tribute to as a condition of receiving party support. With $180 million raised in 2024, CLF is one of the largest PACs in American politics and the primary vehicle for maintaining the Republican House majority. CLF creates a pay-to-play dynamic within the Republican caucus. New members are assigned fundraising targets — "dues" they must raise for CLF — and those who meet or exceed their targets receive larger CLF investments in their re-election campaigns. Members who fail to raise enough face reduced support or no support at all, creating a financial incentive structure that rewards loyalty and fundraising ability over legislative effectiveness. This system effectively monetizes congressional service: your value to the caucus is measured in dollars raised, not votes cast. The PAC operates alongside American Action Network, its 501(c)(4) dark money arm, which provides approximately $60 million in untraceable issue advertising. AAN runs ads that look like campaign ads but are technically "issue advocacy," allowing them to use dark money without disclosing donors. The line between issue advocacy and campaign advertising is so thin that the distinction is essentially meaningless in practice. CLF's $165 million in 2024 spending helped maintain the Republican House majority — a razor-thin margin that required defending dozens of competitive districts. The PAC's targeting decisions — which races to invest in and which to abandon — are among the most consequential choices in American politics, as they effectively determine which Republican members receive the resources needed to win competitive districts. Speaker Mike Johnson now oversees the relationship between House leadership and CLF, inheriting a system built by previous speakers where the super PAC functions as the financial arm of the speakership. The speaker's ability to direct CLF resources creates leverage over individual members — a form of power that operates entirely outside the formal congressional rules and is funded by anonymous donors whose identities the members being funded may never know.

$155.0M

super_pac · Raised $170.0M

House Majority PAC is the Democratic answer to the Congressional Leadership Fund — a $170 million super PAC aligned with House Democratic leadership that funds competitive district campaigns. Nancy Pelosi was the original fundraising engine, using her prolific donor network to build the PAC into a major political force. Hakeem Jeffries has inherited the operation, though Pelosi's fundraising connections remain central to its financial model. The PAC works alongside House Majority Forward, its 501(c)(4) dark money arm, which provided approximately $50 million in untraceable funding. Like every other party-aligned dark money operation, House Majority Forward allows wealthy donors to influence House elections anonymously while Democrats publicly call for transparency in political spending. Despite $155 million spent in 2024, Democrats failed to retake the House — gaining seats but falling short of the majority. This outcome, combined with Senate Majority PAC's failure to hold the Senate majority, raises a broader question about whether the era of super PAC dominance has reached a point of diminishing returns. When both parties spend hundreds of millions and the outcomes are determined by fundamentals (presidential coattails, economic conditions, redistricting) rather than marginal spending advantages, the super PAC model may be enriching media companies and consultants more than it's changing electoral outcomes. Pelosi's continued involvement in HMP's fundraising creates an unusual dynamic where a former Speaker — who remains one of the most effective fundraisers in American politics — continues to shape House campaigns through financial influence even after stepping down from leadership. Pelosi's stock trading activities, which have drawn scrutiny and prompted legislation to ban congressional stock trading, add complexity to her fundraising role: donors who give through Pelosi's network are connected to a politician whose personal financial activities have themselves become politically controversial.

$138.5M

super_pac · Raised $178.0M

AFP Action is the Koch network's primary super PAC, spending $138.5 million in the 2024 cycle as part of a total Koch political network expenditure of $548 million — making it the largest single political operation in America, surpassing both political parties' own spending in many categories. The PAC funds the most sophisticated ground game operation in Republican politics, with paid canvassers deployed year-round in every competitive district across the country. The Koch network's 2024 cycle was marked by an extraordinary political pivot. AFP Action initially spent $10 million opposing Trump in the Republican primary, backing Nikki Haley as the Koch network's preferred candidate. After Trump secured the nomination, the Koch network reversed course and deployed its full resources behind Trump and Republican candidates. This pivot — from spending millions against a candidate to spending hundreds of millions supporting him — demonstrated both the pragmatism and the power of the Koch operation. AFP Action's ground game is its primary competitive advantage. While most super PACs spend primarily on television and digital advertising, AFP Action invests heavily in door-to-door canvassing and direct voter contact. Paid canvassers — not volunteers — knock on doors in target precincts, having personalized conversations with identified voters. This infrastructure, built over a decade, operates independently of the Republican Party and gives the Koch network influence over Republican electoral strategy that no other outside group can match. The PAC's donor list is secret — funding flows through the Koch network's 501(c)(4) structure (Americans for Prosperity and Stand Together), which is not required to disclose donors. This means that the $548 million Koch network expenditure is funded by sources the public cannot identify. The network's biannual donor summits, held at luxury resorts, bring together approximately 700 wealthy donors who collectively pledge hundreds of millions, but their identities remain anonymous unless they choose to self-identify. AFP Action's policy priorities align with Koch Industries' business interests: tax cuts, deregulation, fossil fuel-friendly energy policy, and anti-union labor policy. Critics argue that the Koch network's political spending is a form of corporate self-dealing — using dark money to elect politicians who will cut Koch Industries' taxes and reduce the environmental regulations that constrain its refining and chemical operations. The $1.4 billion annual tax savings Koch Industries reportedly gained from the 2017 TCJA illustrates the return on this political investment.

$133.0M

super_pac · Raised $193.0M

Fairshake PAC is the crypto industry's political juggernaut — a $193 million war chest that achieved a 91% win rate in the races it contested in 2024, making it one of the most successful super PACs in modern political history. Funded primarily by Coinbase ($25 million), Andreessen Horowitz ($70 million), and Ripple ($25 million), Fairshake operates bipartisanly — targeting anyone who threatens crypto-friendly regulation regardless of party affiliation. The PAC's strategy is deceptively simple: identify candidates who oppose crypto-friendly legislation, fund their opponents with overwhelming spending, and never mention cryptocurrency in the advertisements. Like AIPAC's strategy, Fairshake's ads attack candidates on unrelated issues — Social Security, crime, local concerns — while the actual motivation is purely about crypto regulation. Voters seeing these ads have no way of knowing that the real reason millions are being spent is to protect the crypto industry from regulation. Marc Andreessen, the venture capital billionaire who provided $70 million through his firm a16z, has been the PAC's most important funder. Andreessen's political evolution — from Obama supporter to vocal Trump backer — mirrors the broader Silicon Valley rightward shift, driven partly by frustration with Democratic regulation of technology and finance. His podcast and public appearances have given Fairshake an intellectual framework: framing crypto regulation as government overreach that threatens American innovation. The PAC's first major loss came in the March 2026 Illinois primary, where its spending failed to defeat a candidate who explicitly campaigned against crypto industry money in politics. The loss may signal emerging voter backlash against corporate money overwhelming individual races — a vulnerability that could grow as Fairshake deploys its $116 million war chest in 2026 midterms. Fairshake's $116 million remaining cash on hand makes it the best-funded PAC heading into 2026 — more money than most party committees have for the entire cycle. This war chest gives the crypto industry the ability to intervene in any race at any time, creating a deterrent effect: candidates know that opposing crypto legislation means risking millions in attack ads funded by an industry with seemingly unlimited resources.

$125.0M

super_pac · Raised $130.0M

Preserve America PAC is functionally a one-woman political operation: casino billionaire Miriam Adelson provided 92% of its $130 million in funding, making it the most donor-concentrated super PAC supporting a presidential candidate. Adelson, the widow of casino magnate Sheldon Adelson (who was the Republican Party's largest donor before his death in 2021), continued and expanded her husband's political legacy by pouring $120 million into a PAC dedicated almost exclusively to Trump's re-election through television advertising in swing states. The Adelson political operation is driven by a single overriding issue: unconditional American support for Israel, specifically for Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank and opposition to Palestinian statehood. Sheldon Adelson was the primary funder of the campaign to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, which Trump accomplished in 2018. After Trump won in 2024, Miriam Adelson reportedly used her influence — derived from being the single largest donor to his campaign ecosystem — to influence the appointment of Marco Rubio as Secretary of State, a choice aligned with her hawkish pro-Israel positions. The PAC spent $125 million almost entirely on television advertising in swing states — a traditional media strategy that contrasts with America PAC's ground game approach. This massive ad buy made Preserve America PAC one of the largest advertisers in the 2024 cycle. The ads focused on Trump's policy positions and attacks on the Democratic candidate, following conventional super PAC strategy rather than the innovative approaches used by some other major PACs. Preserve America PAC illustrates the extreme donor concentration in American politics. When one individual can fund 92% of a $130 million political operation, the concept of pluralistic democracy strains under the weight of individual wealth. Adelson's spending dwarfs what most political parties raise from thousands of donors, raising fundamental questions about whether a system that allows this level of individual influence can meaningfully represent the interests of ordinary citizens.

$95.0M

super_pac · Raised $100.0M

United Democracy Project is AIPAC's super PAC arm and the most aggressive outside spender in House primary elections in American history. In 2024, UDP spent $100 million — more than any other organization has ever spent on House primaries — with the explicit goal of defeating Democratic candidates who criticized Israeli government policy. The PAC successfully ousted two sitting members of Congress: Jamaal Bowman of New York and Cori Bush of Missouri, spending $15 million and $9 million respectively in their primary races. UDP's strategy is deliberately designed to obscure its motivations. Like its parent organization AIPAC, UDP's advertisements rarely if ever mention Israel. Instead, the ads attack targeted candidates on domestic issues — questioning their commitment to Social Security, highlighting local crime rates, or criticizing their voting records on unrelated legislation. This strategy serves two purposes: it prevents the race from becoming a referendum on Israel policy (which AIPAC might lose), and it makes it difficult for voters to understand why millions of outside dollars are flooding their local primary. In the 2026 cycle, UDP escalated its tactics by using "pop-up PACs" in Illinois primaries — entities created shortly before elections, funded through untraceable channels, that aired attack ads and dissolved after the election. These pop-up PACs made it impossible for voters to identify AIPAC as the funding source during the campaign, as the AIPAC name appeared nowhere in the advertising or filing documents until after the election was over. This tactic represents a new frontier in dark money, using the legal system's reporting delays to achieve anonymity. UDP's spending in Democratic primaries is controversial because it allows a single-issue lobby to effectively choose Democratic nominees. In low-turnout primaries, $15 million in outside spending can overwhelm a candidate's entire campaign budget, making the financial resources of the candidate's supporters irrelevant compared to UDP's war chest. Progressive Democrats have argued that this represents a hostile takeover of the Democratic nominating process by an organization whose primary allegiance is to a foreign government's policy preferences. The PAC's donor network overlaps with AIPAC's larger fundraising apparatus, drawing from the same pool of pro-Israel donors who fund AIPAC's direct contributions and lobbying. This creates a multi-layered influence system: AIPAC donors fund UDP, which funds ads attacking candidates who oppose AIPAC's positions, while AIPAC itself bundles direct contributions to candidates who support its positions. The result is that Israel policy has more money behind it than almost any other single issue in American politics.

$75.0M

super_pac · Raised $80.0M

Restoration PAC is Richard Uihlein's personal political weapon — a super PAC funded almost entirely by the packaging supply billionaire and his wife Liz that backs the most conservative candidates in every race. At $80 million in 2024 spending, Restoration PAC makes Uihlein one of the most significant individual political donors in America, though his approach differs fundamentally from donors like Griffin or Schwarzman: while they fund establishment Republicans, Uihlein funds insurgents — primary challengers who attack Republican incumbents from the right. This insurgent strategy makes Uihlein both loved and feared within the Republican Party. Establishment Republicans view him as a destructive force who funds unelectable candidates in primaries, only to see them lose winnable general elections. MAGA Republicans view him as a hero who holds the party accountable to its conservative base. The tension is real: Uihlein-backed candidates have won primaries in several states only to lose general elections that more moderate Republicans might have won, costing the party seats. Uihlein's fortune comes from Uline, the packaging and shipping supply company that he and Liz built into a $7 billion enterprise. The company is based in Wisconsin and is privately held, allowing the Uihleins to direct company profits into political spending without shareholder oversight. The political spending is genuinely ideological rather than primarily transactional — Uihlein's positions on immigration, spending, and social issues drive his donations more than specific business interests, though he obviously benefits from the tax cuts and deregulation his candidates support. The PAC's spending is heavily concentrated in Republican primaries, where Uihlein funds challengers against incumbents he considers insufficiently conservative. This primary-focused strategy gives him leverage within the party — Republican officeholders know that deviating from conservative orthodoxy risks a well-funded primary challenger. The fear of a Uihlein-funded primary is a disciplining mechanism that pushes the Republican caucus rightward.

$70.0M

hybrid · Raised $80.0M

EMILY's List — the acronym stands for "Early Money Is Like Yeast" (it makes the dough rise) — is the original women's political fundraising powerhouse, and one of the oldest and most transparent PACs in American politics. Founded in 1985, it bundles donations from over 100,000 individual donors to support pro-choice Democratic women candidates, operating as a hybrid PAC that both contributes directly to candidates and runs independent expenditure campaigns. The Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade in 2022 transformed EMILY's List from an important but niche operation into one of the most relevant political organizations in America. Fundraising surged as reproductive rights became a dominant political issue, and EMILY's List-backed candidates found that running on abortion rights was a winning strategy in swing districts. The organization's candidate recruitment pipeline — identifying and training women candidates from local office through Congress — became critical infrastructure for the Democratic Party's response to Dobbs. With $80 million in 2024 spending, EMILY's List is the largest PAC dedicated to electing women. Its fundraising model is distinctive: rather than relying on a few mega-donors, EMILY's List bundles thousands of small contributions from its 100,000+ member network. This gives the organization a claim to genuine grassroots support that mega-donor-funded super PACs cannot make. The model also creates a broad base of politically engaged women who serve as volunteers, advocates, and candidates themselves. EMILY's List has been criticized for supporting only Democratic women, declining to endorse pro-choice Republican women. This partisan stance has intensified since Dobbs, as virtually all Republican-appointed judges voted to overturn Roe and virtually all Republican legislators have supported abortion restrictions. The organization argues that supporting Republican women candidates would legitimize a party that is actively restricting reproductive rights, while critics argue that cross-party support for pro-choice women would be more effective at protecting abortion access. The organization's transparency — both in its fundraising (bundled small donations) and its mission (explicitly supporting pro-choice Democratic women) — makes it one of the most straightforward PACs in a landscape dominated by dark money and hidden agendas. When EMILY's List runs an ad, voters know exactly who is paying for it and why.

$55.0M

super_pac · Raised $60.7M

Democracy PAC is the Soros family's primary political vehicle — almost entirely funded by George Soros through the Fund for Policy Reform, a 501(c)(4) that adds a layer of opacity to the donations. Despite being the target of more conspiracy theories than any other political donor in America, Soros's actual political spending through Democracy PAC is relatively modest compared to Republican mega-donors: $60.7 million in 2024, versus Mellon's $200 million, Musk's $250 million, or the Koch network's $548 million. Democracy PAC functions primarily as a pass-through — distributing money to other Democratic PACs, candidates, and organizations rather than running its own campaign operations. This hub-and-spoke model gives Soros influence across the Democratic ecosystem without requiring a large operational infrastructure. The PAC's contributions go to Senate Majority PAC, House Majority PAC, state-level organizations, and various progressive groups, spreading Soros's money across the Democratic landscape. The fund-of-funds approach through the 501(c)(4) intermediary adds a layer of dark money to what could otherwise be transparent giving. Because the Fund for Policy Reform is not required to disclose its donors, it's theoretically possible that other donors contribute alongside Soros — though all evidence suggests it's essentially a Soros family vehicle. Alex Soros, George's son, has taken an increasingly active role in the family's political operations, appearing at Democratic events and building relationships with party leaders. The right-wing conspiracy ecosystem around Soros vastly inflates his actual political influence. While Soros is indeed a significant Democratic donor, his spending is dwarfed by multiple Republican mega-donors. The fixation on Soros — often laced with antisemitic tropes about a Hungarian-Jewish billionaire secretly controlling global politics — serves as a fundraising and mobilization tool for the right rather than an accurate description of political power dynamics. Democracy PAC operates within standard campaign finance law, does nothing illegal or even unusual by super PAC standards, and represents a fraction of the total political spending landscape.

$45.0M

super_pac · Raised $50.0M

Club for Growth Action is the fiscal conservative super PAC that has been a kingmaker in Republican primaries for over fifteen years. With $50 million in 2024 spending, the PAC promotes tax cuts, deregulation, free trade, and school choice — and threatens any Republican who votes for spending increases with a well-funded primary challenge. The PAC's rating system, like the NRA's, creates a disciplining mechanism within the Republican caucus. Jeff Yass, the PAC's largest donor at $25 million, is also one of the most interesting mega-donors in American politics. Yass is a co-founder of Susquehanna International Group, a quantitative trading firm, and his estimated $33 billion fortune makes him one of the 20 richest people in America. Most notably, Yass holds a massive stake in ByteDance, the parent company of TikTok. When Congress was debating the TikTok ban, Yass lobbied aggressively against it — while simultaneously being the largest funder of a PAC that has enormous influence over the Republican members who would vote on the ban. The conflict is stark: Yass's $33 billion personal interest in TikTok's survival intersects directly with his political spending on the legislators who will decide TikTok's fate. Yass's school choice advocacy also intersects with his business interests. He has invested billions in education technology and school choice organizations. The school voucher programs that Club for Growth promotes would direct public education funding to private schools and education technology companies — the very entities that Yass's investment portfolio is designed to profit from. This alignment of political spending and investment returns makes Yass one of the clearest examples of a mega-donor whose political spending directly benefits his financial portfolio. The PAC's fiscal conservative identity has been tested by Trump-era populism, which favors tariffs and government spending that traditional fiscal conservatives oppose. Club for Growth initially opposed Trump but has largely aligned with the MAGA movement, prioritizing tax cuts and deregulation while de-emphasizing free trade and deficit reduction. This evolution reflects the broader Republican Party's shift from Reagan-era free-market conservatism to Trump-era populist nationalism.

$40.0M

super_pac · Raised $45.0M

Independence USA PAC is Michael Bloomberg's personal super PAC, dedicated primarily to supporting candidates who back gun control and climate action. At $45 million in 2024, it is one of the most transparent major super PACs — almost entirely funded by one disclosed donor (Bloomberg himself), with clear policy priorities and straightforward spending patterns. Bloomberg's total political spending across all vehicles — Independence USA PAC, Everytown for Gun Safety, climate organizations, and his failed presidential campaign — exceeds $1.5 billion career. Bloomberg's approach to political spending is distinctive: he identifies two issues (gun control and climate change), funds organizations and candidates dedicated to those issues, and spends with discipline rather than ideology. Unlike donors who fund the political spectrum broadly, Bloomberg concentrates his spending where he believes it will have the most impact, treating political spending with the same analytical rigor he applies to his financial data company. The PAC functions as the anti-NRA in many races, providing financial support to candidates who back gun control measures like universal background checks, assault weapons restrictions, and red flag laws. As the NRA's spending has collapsed, Bloomberg's political operation — spanning Independence USA PAC, Everytown, and Moms Demand Action — has become the dominant financial force in gun politics, outspending the NRA in most competitive races. Bloomberg's personal wealth ($100+ billion) means he can outspend entire industries on his chosen issues. This concentration of spending power raises legitimate concerns about whether one person should have this level of influence over American politics — the same concern that applies to Musk, the Koch network, and other mega-donors. Bloomberg's spending happens to align with majority public opinion on gun control, but the structural concern about individual wealth translating directly into political power applies regardless of the policy direction.

$25.0M

super_pac · Raised $30.0M

Everytown for Gun Safety Victory Fund is Bloomberg's dedicated gun control super PAC and the financial engine of the gun control movement. Funded primarily by Michael Bloomberg ($20 million in 2024, with billions contributed over his career to the broader Everytown ecosystem), the PAC has achieved something that seemed impossible a decade ago: it outspends the NRA in most competitive races, making gun control advocates the financial dominant force in gun politics for the first time in modern history. The PAC works alongside Everytown for Gun Safety (the advocacy organization) and Moms Demand Action (the grassroots volunteer network), creating a three-legged operation that combines Bloomberg's money, professional advocacy, and genuine grassroots energy. Moms Demand Action, founded by Shannon Watts the day after the Sandy Hook massacre, has built a volunteer network across all 50 states that rivals the NRA's legendary mobilization capacity. This combination of Bloomberg funding and authentic grassroots anger has made Everytown the most effective gun control operation in American history. The post-Sandy Hook and post-Uvalde political landscape has made gun control a winning issue in many swing districts, reversing decades of conventional wisdom that supporting gun control was political suicide. Everytown-backed candidates have won in suburban districts across the country, proving that the NRA's veto power over gun policy has eroded significantly. The PAC's $25 million in 2024 spending was concentrated in competitive House races where gun control was a salient issue. The PAC's dependence on Bloomberg creates a vulnerability: if Bloomberg reduces his spending (due to health, age, or shifting priorities), the gun control movement's financial advantage disappears. Building a sustainable funding base beyond one billionaire remains Everytown's most important strategic challenge. The grassroots energy of Moms Demand Action provides organizational resilience, but the money that fuels competitive spending comes overwhelmingly from one person.

$25.0M

dark_money · Raised $30.0M

The Judicial Crisis Network — rebranded as the Concord Fund to obscure its increasingly controversial operations — is Leonard Leo's judicial confirmation machine and one of the most influential dark money organizations in American history. Operating almost entirely on anonymous donations flowing through Leo's network, JCN has spent tens of millions on advertising campaigns supporting the confirmations of Supreme Court justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, directly shaping the ideological composition of the highest court in the land. JCN's strategy during Supreme Court confirmation battles follows a consistent playbook: saturate media markets with advertising supporting the nominee, fund opposition research against critics, and deploy a network of conservative legal scholars and commentators to frame the nomination as mainstream and moderate. The organization spent approximately $10 million each on the Gorsuch and Kavanaugh confirmations and similar amounts on Barrett — spending that was funded entirely by anonymous donors whose identities may never be known. The rebranding from Judicial Crisis Network to Concord Fund was itself a tactical decision. As JCN's role in shaping the judiciary became increasingly well-known and controversial, the organization adopted a new name that revealed nothing about its mission. This is consistent with Leo's broader strategy of using innocuously named organizations to advance specific ideological goals — the 85 Fund, the Rule of Law Trust, the Marble Freedom Trust — names designed to tell the public nothing about what these organizations actually do. JCN's funding comes almost entirely from Marble Freedom Trust and other entities in Leo's network. As a 501(c)(4), JCN has no obligation to disclose its donors, meaning the public cannot know who is paying for the advertising campaigns that shape public opinion about judicial nominees. The organization has shaped the federal judiciary more than any entity except the Federalist Society itself, with six of nine current Supreme Court justices having been supported by organizations in Leo's network. The Supreme Court's own ethics scandals — including Clarence Thomas's undisclosed trips funded by Harlan Crow and Samuel Alito's controversial flag displays — have drawn attention to the broader ecosystem of dark money that surrounds the judiciary. JCN's role in this ecosystem — funding confirmations, supporting friendly legal challenges that reach the Court, and defending justices against ethics criticism — creates a troubling circularity: dark money helps install justices who then rule in ways that benefit dark money interests.

$22.0M

super_pac · Raised $25.0M

Democratic Majority for Israel PAC serves as AIPAC's Democratic flank — working alongside United Democracy Project to ensure that pro-Israel policy transcends party lines by supporting pro-Israel Democrats and challenging progressives who criticize Israeli government policy. At $25 million in 2024 spending, DMFI is smaller than UDP but plays a complementary role: while UDP uses overwhelming spending to defeat Israel critics, DMFI works within the Democratic Party to ensure a steady pipeline of pro-Israel Democrats runs for office. DMFI's strategy is more subtle than UDP's scorched-earth approach. Rather than solely attacking progressive candidates, DMFI also invests in building relationships with mainstream Democrats, providing campaign support and endorsements that create loyalty over time. The PAC's endorsement carries weight in Democratic primaries because it signals to voters that a candidate is "acceptable" to the pro-Israel community — and by extension, to the donor class that funds pro-Israel politics. The PAC operates in the same donor ecosystem as AIPAC, drawing from the same network of pro-Israel donors who fund AIPAC's direct contributions, UDP's super PAC spending, and various other pro-Israel organizations. This overlapping donor network creates a multi-layered influence system where the same money flows through different channels to achieve the same goal: ensuring unwavering American support for Israel regardless of which party controls Congress. DMFI's existence reflects AIPAC's understanding that its long-term influence depends on maintaining support in both parties. While Republican support for Israel is virtually unanimous, Democratic support is increasingly contested by the party's progressive wing. DMFI's role is to hold the center-left of the Democratic Party in the pro-Israel camp, preventing the kind of broad Democratic defection on Israel policy that would threaten the bipartisan consensus that has sustained $3.8 billion in annual military aid for decades.

$10.0M

leadership · Raised $10.0M

The NRA Political Victory Fund was once the most feared PAC in American politics — an endorsement from the NRA could make a political career, and an 'F' rating could end one. Today, the NRA-PVF is a shadow of its former self, its spending collapsing from $29 million in 2020 to just $10 million in 2024, a 66% decline driven by Wayne LaPierre's corruption scandal, massive legal fees, and organizational dysfunction that has hollowed out what was once the most powerful single-issue PAC in the country. The NRA-PVF's power derived not primarily from its spending but from its rating system and the perception that the NRA could mobilize millions of gun owners against any politician. The 'A-to-F' rating system functioned as a pass/fail test for Republican primary candidates: an 'A' rating was a ticket to gun owner support, while anything less invited a primary challenge. This rating system, maintained for decades, created a feedback loop where politicians competed for NRA approval, moving policy rightward on gun issues to secure the coveted 'A' rating. The PAC is funded primarily by small-dollar donations from NRA members and contributions from gun manufacturers — the same manufacturers who benefit from the political environment the NRA creates. Smith & Wesson, Ruger, and other firearms companies contribute to the PAC that fights the regulations that would reduce their sales. This symbiotic relationship between a "civil rights organization" and the industry it protects has always been the NRA's fundamental tension. The collapse of NRA spending has been Bloomberg's Everytown for Gun Safety's gain. In 2024, Everytown outspent the NRA in most competitive races — a reversal that would have been unthinkable a decade ago. The NRA's remaining $10 million, spread across hundreds of races, means its per-race impact is negligible in all but the smallest contests. The organization that once spent $30 million defeating a single presidential candidate now struggles to fund meaningful intervention in congressional races. Despite its financial collapse, the NRA brand retains cultural power among Republican primary voters. The 'NRA endorsement' still appears in campaign literature and television ads, and the organization's annual convention still draws over 70,000 attendees and features speeches by Republican presidential candidates. The gap between the NRA's cultural significance and its actual financial power has never been wider — it is a brand operating on reputation while the organization behind it crumbles.

$8.0M

super_pac · Raised $10.0M

Stand With Crypto PAC is Coinbase's grassroots-styled political operation — the soft-power complement to Fairshake's hard-power spending. While Fairshake drops tens of millions on advertising to defeat crypto-hostile candidates, Stand With Crypto claims to mobilize 1.5 million crypto holder "members" as voters, creating the appearance of a grassroots movement that happens to want exactly what the crypto industry's largest companies want. The PAC's "Crypto Voter Scorecard" rates every member of Congress on crypto-friendliness, creating an industry-driven endorsement system that tells crypto holders who to vote for and against. Members who receive an 'A' rating can expect industry support; those with an 'F' can expect to face Fairshake-funded opponents. This rating system, modeled on the NRA's decades-old approach, creates a disciplining mechanism that pushes legislators toward the crypto industry's preferred policies. The "grassroots" claim is the PAC's most debated feature. Stand With Crypto was created and funded by Coinbase — a publicly traded corporation — and its member list consists primarily of Coinbase users who clicked a button on the company's app. Whether 1.5 million people clicking a button constitutes a political movement or corporate astroturf depends on one's perspective, but the distinction matters because grassroots movements carry democratic legitimacy that corporate lobbying does not. The PAC spent $8 million in 2024, a fraction of Fairshake's $133 million, focusing on voter mobilization, issue advertising, and the scorecard system. Its real value to the crypto industry is as a legitimacy-laundering operation: when legislators face criticism for voting with the crypto industry, they can point to Stand With Crypto's 1.5 million "members" as evidence of constituent support rather than corporate capture.

$5.0M

super_pac · Raised $6.0M

Defend Texas Liberty PAC is the most feared political operation in Texas — a state-level super PAC funded by oil billionaires Tim Dunn and Farris Wilks that has reshaped Texas politics by primary-challenging any Republican who isn't sufficiently conservative. At $6 million in 2024 (with much larger spending in previous cycles), the PAC punches far above its weight because Texas's low-turnout primaries can be won with small spending and because the fear of a Dunn/Wilks-funded primary is itself a political weapon. Dunn and Wilks are both West Texas oil billionaires who share a Christian nationalist worldview. Dunn, CEO of CrownQuest Operating, and Wilks, who made his fortune in fracking services (Frac Tech), use their wealth to advance a political agenda that combines fossil fuel deregulation with socially conservative positions on education, gender issues, and religious liberty. Their funding network extends beyond DTL PAC to include Empower Texans, Texas Scorecard, and various other organizations that rate, endorse, and challenge Texas legislators. The PAC's most damaging scandal erupted when its leader, Jonathan Stickland, was photographed meeting with white nationalist Nick Fuentes at the PAC's office. The meeting, revealed by media reports, created a firestorm in Texas politics and led to calls for the PAC to be disbanded. Several Republican elected officials who had received DTL PAC funding distanced themselves, though most returned to the fold after the controversy subsided. Dunn and Wilks denounced the meeting but maintained their relationship with the PAC's operations. DTL PAC controls a significant bloc of the Texas legislature through fear of primary challenges. Texas's open primary system and low turnout mean that a well-funded insurgent can defeat an incumbent with relatively modest spending. The mere threat of a DTL-funded primary challenge is sufficient to move legislators rightward on oil and gas regulation, school vouchers, property taxes, and social issues. This fear-based influence means that two oil billionaires effectively shape legislation in the world's ninth-largest economy without holding office or submitting to democratic accountability.

$0

super_pac · Raised $0

Protect Our Future PAC is a cautionary tale about how stolen money can buy political influence. The PAC was almost entirely funded by Sam Bankman-Fried, the FTX cryptocurrency exchange founder who was subsequently convicted of fraud, conspiracy, and money laundering for stealing billions from FTX customers. The $27 million Bankman-Fried directed to Protect Our Future in the 2022 midterms came from customer funds that were illegally misappropriated — meaning the PAC's political influence was purchased with stolen money. The PAC spent its $27 million supporting Democratic candidates in 2022 House primaries, focusing on candidates aligned with pandemic preparedness and effective altruism — the philosophical movement that Bankman-Fried used as moral cover for his financial empire. The candidates who received Protect Our Future support were presented as champions of evidence-based policy and long-term thinking, but the money funding their campaigns was the product of one of the largest financial frauds in American history. Bankman-Fried's political strategy extended beyond this PAC — he also donated millions to Democratic and Republican candidates directly, funded other PACs, and cultivated relationships with congressional leaders and White House officials. His access was remarkable: Bankman-Fried met with SEC officials, testified to Congress, and shaped crypto regulation discussions, all while running what prosecutors described as a fraud from the beginning. The speed with which political doors opened for a 30-year-old with $27 million to spend illustrates how money transcends credentials in Washington. All donations from Bankman-Fried are now subject to clawback by FTX bankruptcy trustees, who are working to recover funds for defrauded customers. This means that candidates and PACs that received Bankman-Fried money may be forced to return it — creating the bizarre situation where political influence was purchased, exercised, and then retroactively revoked. The PAC is effectively defunct, with zero activity in 2024, but its legacy endures as proof that the American political system has no meaningful safeguard against stolen money being used to buy political influence.