BY TREVOR POTTER
American voters are once again the target of millions upon millions of dollars in political spending designed to influence their decisions about who should represent them in government. According to the tracking firm AdImpact, spending on ads across broadcast, digital and streaming platforms during the 2026 election cycle is likely to reach a record $11.6 billion.
The trend of ultra-wealthy individuals and corporate industries using their vast resources to fund massive political campaigns continues. According to the New York Times, at least $1 billion of this spending will happen in the shadows, with anonymous donors funding political activity of all kinds.
Campaign Legal Center has released a study of the AI industry’s spending in recent elections, which finds that developers like OpenAI and Anthropic, as well as AI billionaires like Sam Altman, Greg Brockman, Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz, have collectively given over $180 million to industry-affiliated super PACs and dark money groups ahead of the 2026 midterm election. Elon Musk has started spending what is reported to be a more than $100 million dollar war chest.
Aside from the staggering volume of spending, another notable development during this election cycle involves brazen violations of campaign finance laws — laws that exist to prevent corruption.
While U.S. Supreme Court rulings like Citizens United opened the floodgates for corporations, individuals and organizations to raise and spend unlimited sums on our elections, the courts have consistently upheld laws that prevent candidates from directing how these funds are spent. This anti-coordination doctrine is supposed to guard against the corrupting influence of unlimited election spending.
Campaign Legal Center has blown the whistle on President Trump’s comments indicating he is openly violating this pillar of campaign finance law. In a complaint demanding an investigation by the Federal Election Commission (FEC), we note many instances of the president bragging about his direct control over MAGA Inc., an outside political committee that has reportedly raised more than $400 million, virtually all through six- and seven-figure contributions from special interest groups, corporations, and ultra-wealthy individuals.
By law, this arrangement must put MAGA Inc.’s activities beyond the control of any candidate or elected official, but Trump has repeatedly said the quiet part out loud:
“I’m going to spend whatever amount of money necessary to try to help us, and this is money from MAGA Inc. This is my money that I control.”
“I think I have like close to $1 billion in the super PAC… And I’m allocating probably $400 or $500 million [to the midterms]. So, I’ll be spending.”
On another occasion, Trump corrected an interviewer who referred to his allies controlling MAGA Inc., underscoring that the PAC was “Not [controlled by] my allies. I control it.”
The president’s complete disregard for the requirement that federal officeholders not control outside groups opens our campaign finance system even wider as a funnel for torrents of potentially corrupting cash to flow into our political system — with voters suffering when special interests exert influence over politicians through political contributions and spending. But Trump is not alone in facilitating this deluge.
Both major political parties are reportedly already taking advantage of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling from June of this year, eliminating the cap on how much money they can spend in coordination with individual candidates. Previous limits on coordinated spending prevented candidates from taking direct advantage of the fact that parties are allowed to accept dramatically larger amounts in contributions. The Court’s disastrous ruling defies decades of precedent that respected the clear need to limit the risk of corruption posed by massive direct contributions to candidates.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has made this entire situation even worse by expanding a narrow law that requires broadcast TV and radio stations to provide discounted advertising rates to candidates. Under the FCC’s interpretation these discounts must now also be given to entities that can spend far more money on elections than candidates. This includes political parties that coordinate their spending with candidates, as well as joint fundraising committees (JFCs) that involve at least one candidate.
The extension of the discounted ad rate to JFCs is particularly troublesome. The Federal Election Commission in 2024 essentially gave a green light for super PACs to participate in JFCs with candidates, with an advisory opinion that opens up yet another avenue for limitless funds to flow into our political system.
I want to acknowledge that the picture I have painted about the influence of big money on our elections is grim. I believe, however, that if you are reading this, it is because you want to understand the threats to our democracy and what is being done to confront them. On the latter point, there are promising green shoots of progress.
In July, Campaign Legal Center celebrated a significant victory in our effort to defend a groundbreaking election spending transparency law in Arizona, Proposition 211. The core purpose of the law is to provide voters with information about who is directly responsible for spending huge sums on political ads in the state — based on the principle that voters armed with such information can make more informed decisions on Election Day.
Thus far, the courts, including the Arizona Supreme Court, have upheld the law, giving us hope that Proposition 211 can serve as a model for other states to follow. Similar legislation supported by Campaign Legal Center called the DISCLOSE Act has been repeatedly introduced in Congress.
On a broader level, it seems that we may be approaching one of those moments in American history when public disgust with corruption in government — fueled by egregious amounts of political spending by special interests — produces a response from elected representatives. We have had such moments in the past: After the Watergate scandal, and during the early 2000’s when I worked with Senator John McCain of Arizona and others to advance the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, also known as the McCain-Feingold Act.
Recent revelations about an extensive, corrupt scheme to funnel disguised, illegal contributions from a defense contractor to a super PAC supporting Maine Senator Susan Collins demonstrate the kind of pay-to-play collusion that drives demands for reform. CLC was the first to unearth these allegations in a complaint from 2020.
During a career fighting big money in politics, I have seen the degree to which Americans instinctively oppose a political system built on a culture of dependency between politicians and powerful special interests. The public is far ahead of many elected representatives on this issue. But history tells us that, eventually, those representatives will heed the message from voters if that message is delivered in forceful and unambiguous terms. At Campaign Legal Center, we are devoted to ensuring the voices of voters are heard loud and clear.
Looking for more in-depth insights on issues critical to our democracy? Consider subscribing to the “From the Desk of Trevor Potter” newsletter, written by Campaign Legal Center’s founder and president, Trevor Potter. Get expert analysis and learn more about Campaign Legal Center’s efforts to protect and strengthen democracy for all Americans by subscribing via email or on LinkedIn.