Nataley Davis | features editor

As political advertisements fill television and phone screens across the United States, the groups funding midterm candidates help determine how visible campaigns become.

Political action committees (PACs) are organizations that raise funds to support or oppose political candidates.

Karen Sebold, a political science professor at the University of Arkansas, said that PACs have been around since the early 20th century.

“You see the rise of self-financing of campaigns as industrialism takes off, which means there’s more interest groups out there,” Sebold said. “Those groups start to get involved in donating to campaigns, and that’s when we start to see laws created to regulate those groups, like how much they can give.”

Today, there are limits as to what different groups can contribute to campaigns and what they are classified as, according to Sebold. PACs are allowed to work directly with campaigns and political parties, while groups known as super PACs cannot.

Duquesne University political science professor Kristen Coopie said there is an important distinction between the two types of committees.

“Traditional PACs are subject to limits as to how much people can contribute, where money can come from and how they can spend the money,” Coopie said. “Super PACs can’t give money directly to candidates, but they can raise and essentially spend unlimited amounts of money. And there’s far fewer limitations on where the money can come from and how they can spend the money.”

Henrick Schatzinger, a professor of political science at Ripon College, said traditional PACs play a smaller role in modern politics following the 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case.

The Supreme Court ruled that the government could not prohibit corporations and labor unions from independently funding political communications and broadcasts under the First Amendment. Schatzinger said this led to the rise of super PACs.

“Within a couple of years [of 2010] it was not unusual that the super PACs already outraised and outspent actual candidates,” Schatzinger said.

Schatzinger said wealthy, highly influential figures funding campaigns have created a gap between what used to be possible for candidates and the kind of reach they have today.

“We do see a record amount of campaign spending … One of the biggest impacts that we have seen since 2010 is that it’s not necessarily corporations who are invested in these campaigns,” Schatzinger said. “Individual billionaires are spending more money than ever on these campaigns, which, of course, then gives them outside influence.”

Coopie said that the U.S. is on pace to spend more in this midterm cycle than in the 2024 presidential election. This amount of money can create differences in the resources available to competing political parties.

Earlier this month, AdImpact reported that about $11.6 billion is projected to be spent on the 2026 midterms, about $400 million more than what was spent during the 2024 general election.

Many super PACs in the 2026 election cycle like America PAC, Democracy PAC and Restoration of America PAC are supported by a single wealthy donor, according to Public Citizen.

Individual democrat candidates are outraising republicans, but MAGA super PACs are dominating Democratic groups in funding, according to the Federal Election Commission.

Schatzinger, but he said it’s impossible to simply buy election results.

“Republicans may have the financial firepower to dominate the airwaves, but it’s just not the same as having the power to change the national mood,” Schatzinger said. “You cannot really turn around a lopsided race just because you throw a lot of money at it.”

Sebold said that it’s hard to predict an election outcome based on who raises the most money, but a candidate does need significant funding to run a competitive campaign.

“You cannot compete in an election unless there’s a lot of money flowing out there to support your candidacy,” she said.

Coopie noted that it’s important to keep funding records public, but it’s hard to regulate because many citizens don’t look into them.

“I think transparency with where your money is coming from is absolutely crucial just because you want to know who believes in that candidate,” Coopie said.

Although there are regulations on what different groups can do, the Federal Election Committee leaves room for potential corruption, Sebold said.

“Any group that gives directly to a candidate has to be real careful not to become a super PAC or slip into that kind of activity, or they might get in trouble, theoretically, with the FEC,” Sebold said. “My work on the FEC would tell you they’re not likely to get in trouble.”

The FEC has not been able to enforce federal campaign finance laws since closing its doors in October 2025 because of the lack of a quorum of at least four members, according to Public Citizen.

On Nov. 3, Pennsylvanians will vote on the commonwealth’s next governor, lieutenant governor and members of the U.S. House of Representatives, state Senate and state House.

Coopie said that although donors can benefit campaigns, money does not have the final say.

“Generally, money plays a big role in outcomes of elections, but not always,” Coopie said.

“There is no strict rule that says the person who raises and spends the most amount of money wins — there are some candidates who have pulled out victories and campaigns that have been out fundraised and outspent by their opponents.”

Nataley Davis can be reached at davisn5@duq.edu