SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
A Majority of Super PACs Are Devoted to Just One Candidate, Public Citizen Study Finds
Many Single-Candidate Committees Are Founded, Financed or Managed By Friends, Family and Political Allies of the Candidate They Aid, Discrediting Claims of ‘Independence’
WASHINGTON
A majority of the super PACs active in this election cycle are devoted to helping just a single candidate, a new Public Citizen analysis shows. Of these, many were founded by friends, family members, former employees or political allies of the candidate they support, meaning they cannot plausibly be deemed independent.
This is important because the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission to permit unfettered outside spending in elections was premised on the assumption that expenditures by corporations and other third-party groups were "independent" and therefore did not pose a risk of corrupting the candidate they benefit.
But an analysis of spending by super PACs - the committees enabled by Citizens United that may accept unlimited contributions - discredits that core assumption. The report, "Super Connected; Super PACs' Devotion to Individual Candidates Undercuts Assumption in Citizen United That Outside Spending Would Be 'Independent,' " also found that:
* Of 108 super PACs that had spent at least $100,000 through the middle of October, 65 were active in just one contest;
* The 65 single-candidate super PACs have spent approximately $203 million, accounting for 55 percent of the $370 million spent by all super PACs that have spent at least $100,000; and
* Although single-candidate super PACs have received significant attention for their work in the presidential election, such super PACs also are playing a major role in the congressional elections. Of 69 super PACs devoted solely to the congressional elections, 39 have worked on behalf of only one candidate.
"Single-candidate super PACs are making a mockery of the campaign finance system," said Taylor Lincoln, research director for Public Citizen's Congress Watch division and author of the report. "Donors seeking to dodge contribution limits can simply give unlimited amounts to the candidate's super PAC."
Consider Lou Ann Zelenik, a congressional challenger in Tennessee, who was the beneficiary of two super PACs that were devoted solely to attacking her opponent. Both super PACs received the majority of their funding from the same person, a former Zelenik finance chair. Numerous other super PACs discussed in the report were managed by political allies and employees of the candidate they benefited.
The report also contains numerous examples of the convoluted machinations that super PACs can use to hide their donors even though their contributions theoretically must be disclosed.
Take, for example, Freedom Fund for America's Future. It reported spending $175,145 to oppose Tom Smith in the primary for the Republican nomination to represent Pennsylvania in the U.S. Senate. It then reported that 92 percent of its money came from another super PAC, Fight for the Dream. Fight for the Dream reported that it got its money from yet another group that shared the same mailbox. That other group is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit that keeps its donors secret. The one clue Fight for the Dream revealed was that its mailbox was registered to the former finance co-chairman for one of Smith's main opponents. This is just one example of the tangled web that Citizens United has wrought.
"In Citizens United, the court claimed that outside expenditures are not corrupting even while it maintained its view that large contributions to candidates are," said Lisa Gilbert, director of Public Citizen's Congress Watch division. "This report shows that those views are irreconcilable."
The report can be viewed here.
Public Citizen is a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization that champions the public interest in the halls of power. We defend democracy, resist corporate power and work to ensure that government works for the people - not for big corporations. Founded in 1971, we now have 500,000 members and supporters throughout the country.
(202) 588-1000LATEST NEWS
'You Should Be Alarmed,' Says Economist as Trump's Iran War Pushes US Gas Past $4 Per Gallon
"Talk to or read energy experts—people who focus on the physical side of the oil crisis—and their hair is on fire."
Mar 31, 2026
Gas prices in the US have surged to a four-year high, and Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman is warning that the worst is likely yet to come.
Amid a Tuesday projection from AAA that average US gas prices had hit $4 per gallon for the first time since 2022, Krugman published an analysis of the petroleum market in which he projected that the price of oil will go even higher in the coming weeks as the global economy runs into supply shortages caused by President Donald Trump's war against Iran.
Krugman argued that oil price hikes have actually been tame so far because physical supplies have remained steady in recent weeks, as tankers that had already passed through the Strait of Hormuz before the start of the war have continued making scheduled deliveries.
That "grace period," as Krugman described it, is about to end as speculative market prices run into the hard realities of physical shortages.
What this fundamentally means, wrote Krugman, is "you should be alarmed."
"Once the crisis gets physical, there will no longer be room for jawboning the markets," Krugman wrote. "Since the war began there have been several occasions on which Donald Trump has been able to talk prices down by asserting that meaningful negotiations are underway... but that won’t work once the oil runs out. So prices will have to rise."
As for how far prices will go up, Krugman calculated that with only medium disruption to global oil production and medium demand elasticity, the price of oil would rise to $152 per barrel, which would push US gas prices well over $4.50 per gallon.
Making matters worse, Krugman found that it wouldn't take much additional disruption to push the price of oil into worse-case scenarios where it would top $200 per barrel.
"If oil really does go to $200 or more, it’s all too easy to envisage a full-blown global economic crisis, with an inflation surge and quite likely a recession," Krugman commented. "Ever since this war began I’ve noticed a sharp divide in sentiment among experts. Finance and macroeconomics experts have been relatively sanguine about our ability to ride out this storm. But talk to or read energy experts—people who focus on the physical side of the oil crisis—and their hair is on fire."
Petroleum industry analyst Patrick De Haan on Tuesday highlighted the major increases in the price of diesel fuel since the start of the Iran war, which could add even more pain to the US economy in the form of higher shipping costs for goods.
"Can't overstate the impact that's coming down the pipeline to truckers, farmers, logistics, and beyond," De Haan wrote in a social media post. "The US economy runs on diesel with several states setting new all-time highs for diesel, while others are seeing largest monthly increases of all time."
De Haan also posted a chart highlighting the states with the biggest diesel price increases since late February, and it showed swing states Arizona, Nevada, and North Carolina faced the largest surges, with prices up more than 57% in just one month in each state.
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Loudly Predicted, Trump-GOP Medicaid Cuts Decimating Hospitals Across US
Of the roughly 450 hospitals identified in a new analysis as at risk of closure or service cuts, around 200 are located in congressional districts represented by Republicans.
Mar 31, 2026
The unprecedented Medicaid cuts that US President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans approved last summer are putting hundreds of hospitals across the country at high risk of cutting services or permanently shutting their doors, a potentially devastating outcome for millions of poor Americans that was repeatedly predicted ahead of time.
The advocacy group Public Citizen released a report Monday identifying 446 hospitals that could be forced to reduce services or close because of the Trump-GOP Medicaid cuts, which will amount to around $1 trillion over the next decade. The at-risk hospitals collectively served 7 million patients in 2024, according to Public Citizen's analysis.
Nearly 200 of the hospitals listed in Public Citizen's report are located in congressional districts represented by Republicans who voted for the Medicaid cuts, and 146 are in states represented by Senate Republicans—nearly all of whom supported the sprawling budget package that included the assault on Medicaid.
“Trump’s cuts to Medicaid will hurt millions of low-income and disabled Americans, and will deepen financial strains that are already plaguing rural and safety-net hospitals—compromising their ability to deliver care, potentially leading many to close,” said Public Citizen researcher Eileen O’Grady, the author of the report. “Congress should take urgent action to restore all Medicaid funding cuts enacted by Trump and Republicans in Congress, and should extend the enhanced premium tax credits for coverage through the Affordable Care Act marketplaces.”
The report comes as Republicans are reportedly considering billions of dollars in additional healthcare cuts—and kicking hundreds of thousands more off their health coverage—to help fund Trump's illegal and increasingly expensive war on Iran.
Public Citizen found in its report that there's at least one hospital at risk of closing or slashing services in 44 states and Washington, DC. States with the highest proportion of at-risk hospitals are Connecticut, California, New York, Massachusetts, and Washington, the analysis shows.
"It is notable that while there are more at-risk hospitals in Democrat-led states and congressional districts, a substantial number of hospitals in Republican-led states and congressional districts are threatened by Medicaid cuts," the report observes. "Almost all congressional Republicans voted to pass the Big Ugly Law."
Keep ReadingShow Less
With Nearly 50 Boats Attacked, US Strikes Highlight ‘Pattern of Unlawful Use of Lethal Force’: Human Rights Watch
"When unlawful force is repeated over time, it risks becoming normalized."
Mar 31, 2026
The Trump administration's most recent attack on a boat in the Caribbean, which killed four people last week, "highlights a sustained pattern of unlawful use of lethal force outside any context of armed conflict, amounting to extrajudicial executions," Human Rights Watch said on Tuesday.
The US military announced last Wednesday that it had conducted its 47th attack on boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific. The Trump administration has presented little evidence for its claim that the targeted boats have been engaged in trafficking drugs to the United States. At least 163 people have been killed in these attacks since September 2025, all of them without trial.
Human Rights Watch is part of a chorus of international organizations and observers that have condemned the boat bombing campaign as acts of murder in flagrant violation of international law.
“These strikes aren’t one-off incidents, they’re part of a pattern of using military force where the law does not permit it, over and over again,” said Sarah Yager, Washington director at Human Rights Watch. “The fact that these strikes have faded from public attention does not make these violations any less grave or unlawful.”
The organization noted that there is no ongoing military conflict in the Caribbean or eastern Pacific that would make those traveling by boat legitimate targets.
And while the US government has provided scant evidence that those it has killed were trafficking drugs, Human Rights Watch said that even if evidence of drug trafficking existed, suspected criminals are still not lawful targets of lethal force unless they pose an imminent threat to the lives of others.
The boat strikes have continued in the background as President Donald Trump has launched attacks against Venezuela and Iran, both of which international organizations have described as acts of aggression that violate the laws of war.
Trump has also enacted a crippling economic blockade of Cuba with the explicit goal of toppling its government so the US can "take" the island, and has previously threatened to use economic leverage or the US military to forcibly annex Greenland.
“When unlawful force is repeated over time, it risks becoming normalized,” Yager said. “That’s dangerous because it opens the door to using lethal force whenever and wherever a government wishes and without constraints.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular