Who selects our next representative in Congress, voters or wealthy elites?

Super PACs funded by hidden donors have directed more than one million dollars into the Democratic primary for Congress in New Hampshire CD-1, which includes Manchester, Laconia and the Seacoast, and over five weeks remain before the vote. The expenditures have supported Maura Sullivan and Stefany Shaheen.

Will Super PACs backed by billionaires or everyday voters shape this contest?

Earlier, I addressed the risk of external interference in our voting process. New Hampshire Governor Kelly Ayotte dismissed the concern as minor, which illustrates how extreme conduct is becoming accepted despite its challenge to established legal and ethical standards.

This week the focus shifts to another danger facing equitable elections that spans both parties: the harmful effect of large sums in politics, especially when the sources remain hidden. Obscure nonprofits and limited liability companies, often backed by a handful of affluent individuals, channel resources through Super PACs to sway outcomes. The funds qualify as dark because donors stay undisclosed to the public, though candidates typically know the origins.

Such Super PAC activity differs from candidate-led fundraising, where contenders and their supporters handle the effort directly. Those who skip the demanding task of building support through personal outreach struggle to reach voters and convey their positions.

PAC versus Super PAC

A PAC, or political action committee, faces caps on direct contributions to candidates, set at five thousand dollars per federal election cycle. Individuals may give up to thirty-five hundred dollars per cycle.

Super PACs operate without those caps because they claim independence and avoid direct transfers to candidates. They face no requirement to reveal funding sources, though disclosure remains optional.

The 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court ruling paved the way for these entities by removing long-standing limits on corporate independent expenditures, a decision that also extended to unions and opened the door for groups operating separately from candidates.

The Brennan Center noted that the Court expanded beyond the immediate case to eliminate restrictions on such spending, leading to the rise of super PACs.

The scale of the issue

According to the Brennan Center, super PACs have spent roughly 6.4 billion dollars on federal races from 2010 through 2022. In the 2024 cycle alone, they reached at least 2.7 billion dollars. These groups have surpassed the total from small donors giving two hundred dollars or less, even as those contributions grew. In 2022, twenty-one major donor families supplied 783 million dollars, while billionaires accounted for fifteen percent of federal election funds, mostly directed to super PACs backing congressional bids.

Elon Musk led spending in the 2024 cycle and has stated plans to allocate between 100 million and 120 million dollars across eight states in 2026 via his America PAC, including Maine.

Can states regulate dark money without federal rules?

A recent hearing before the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston examined whether states may impose limits. The US Supreme Court will likely decide the matter eventually.

Maine voters approved a 2024 initiative directing the legislature to cap super PAC spending at five thousand dollars per election. Three-quarters of voters backed the measure, yet a federal judge blocked it citing Citizens United. An appeal reached the First Circuit, where attorneys including Lawrence Lessig and Neal Katyal argued for upholding the law.

Judges explored whether single-donor super PACs truly qualify as independent and whether expenditures align with candidate strategies.

Red boxing

Campaigns and super PACs coordinate through several methods, including red boxing. Candidates post desired messages, images or videos in red boxes on public platforms that super PACs monitor, allowing the groups to produce materials that match the candidate strategy exactly.

The approach is direct: candidates outline preferred biographical points, opponent vulnerabilities and even targeting details by location, age or demographics.

Maura Sullivan has used this method to signal preferences to supporting super PACs.

Vote Vets has distributed multiple mailers and spent four hundred thousand dollars on television and digital placements for Sullivan, with total outlays exceeding six hundred thousand dollars.

The Servant Leaders Fund, LLC directed nearly one hundred eighty-five thousand dollars toward Sullivan. In the prior cycle the same fund gave substantial sums to Republican committees and a Mar-a-Lago entity, raising questions about its role in a Democratic primary.

Stefany Shaheen has seen similar support. Article One PAC, or A1PAC, has spent almost six hundred seventeen thousand dollars on mailers and digital ads for her campaign. Billionaire Robert Granieri ranks among the identified backers of A1PAC, which has appeared in multiple races nationwide.

Christian Urrutia stands against dark money.

Prospects for the Maine law and similar measures in other states appear limited given the current Supreme Court composition. The practical response lies in voter choices. Citizens should consider which candidates accept dark money support and whether those ties to billionaires and interest groups will hinder efforts at reform.

Candidate Christian Urrutia urged all contenders in the NH CD-1 race to reject dark money involvement weeks ago. The decisions by Shaheen and Sullivan to proceed with such support now stand clear.