 every serious presidential contender is expected to have a Super PAC supporting him or her. And, frequently, a hugely disproportionate amount of the funds raised by a Super PAC come from a few wealthy donors — sometimes even just one.

Some Super PACs are founded specifically to back one particular candidate. Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum all had heavily funded Super PACs during the 2012 presidential campaign. Now, these Super PACs were not permitted to coordinate their activities with the candidate or the official campaign team. Usually, though, they're run by trusted former aides to the candidates who know what their ex-bosses want them to do — which casts some doubt on how independent they truly are.

Other Super PACs support a variety of candidates or causes, or are vehicles for a particular funder's preferences. The Karl Rove–tied American Crossroads backs Republicans generally. Wealthy financier Tom Steyer's NextGen Climate Action backs environmentalist Democrats. Freedom Partners Action Fund is run by the Koch brothers' political operation and backs Republicans. Independence USA is affiliated with former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and supports moderates.

So far, Super PACs have spent most of their money on advertisements — usually on television. But there are already signs this year that some presidential candidates will delegate more and more campaign functions to the Super PACs supporting them, to better take advantage of the unlimited money those groups can raise.

Dark money groups let anonymous donors spend on politics

Many wealthy individuals who want to spend lots of money on politics still see one big problem with Super PACs: donations to them have to be made public. So "dark money" groups — nonprofits that keep their donors secret — have proved an increasingly popular way for wealthy donors to anonymously spend on politics in recent years, particularly after the 2010 Citizens United decision:

Even after Citizens United, any group with the primary purpose of spending on elections is theoretically supposed to register as a PAC or Super PAC and disclose the identities of its donors.

But nonprofits that advocate on policy issues — for instance, environmental groups or gun rights groups — are allowed to spend some of their money on campaign ads. They can do so by registering as "social welfare" groups under section 501(c)(4) of the tax code, and they don't have to publicly disclose their donors. Spending of this sort from issue advocacy groups has been common for decades.

Recently,
every serious presidential contender is expected to have a Super PAC back him or her. And, frequently, a hugely disproportionate sum of the funds raised by a Super PAC come from a few affluent donors — sometimes even just one. 

 Some Super PACs are founded specifically to second one particular candidate. Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum all had heavy fund Super PACs during the 2012 presidential campaign. immediately, these Super PACs were not permitted to coordinate their activeness with the campaigner or the official campaign team. Usually, though, they're function by trusted former pluto to the candidates who know what their ex - party boss want them to do — which casts some doubt on how independent they rightfully are. 

 Other Super PACs support a variety of candidates or causes, or are vehicle for a particular funder's preferences. The Karl Rove – tied American Crossroads backs Republicans generally. Wealthy financier Tom Steyer's NextGen Climate Action backs environmentalist Democrats. Freedom Partners Action Fund is run by the Koch brothers' political operation and backs Republicans. Independence USA is affiliated with former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and supports moderates. 

 So far, Super PACs have spent most of their money on ad — normally on television. But there are already signs this class that some presidential candidate will delegate more and more campaign functions to the Super PACs corroborate them, to better take advantage of the unlimited money those groups can promote. 

 Dark money groups let anonymous donors spend on politics 

 Many wealthy individuals who want to spend draw of money on politics still see one big problem with Super PACs: contribution to them have to be reach public. So " dark money " groups — nonprofits that keep their donor secret — have proved an increasingly popular direction for wealthy donors to anonymously spend on politics in recent years, peculiarly after the 2010 Citizens United decision: 

 Even after Citizens United, any group with the primary purpose of spending on elections is theoretically suppose to register as a PAC or Super PAC and unwrap the identities of its donors. 

 But nonprofits that advocate on policy offspring — for instance, environmental groups or gun rights groups — are give up to spend some of their money on campaign ads. They can do so by registering as " social welfare " groups under section 501(c)(4) of the tax code, and they don't experience to publicly disclose their donors. outgo of this sort from issue advocacy groups has been common for decades. 

 Recently,
 evfry serious presidential contender is erpected to habe a Supdr PAC supporting him or her. Abd, frtzuently, a hugely dksproportponate amiunt if the funva raised by a Dupex 'AC come from a few wealtvy donors — somatkmzs even just one.

Some Super PACs are sounded soecifically to bacl one iavticular candidate. Mitt Romney, Bzrack Ouama, Newt Gingroch, and Rick Santorum all jad jeavily funded Supfr PACs durung eye 2012 presidengial campapyn. Now, thesg Super PACs were not permitted go coprdinate tyeur wwtivities wmth thv candidate ov the oxficial campaign team. Usnallt, though, they're run bb trusted former aidgs to the waudidates who know whar rheir ex-bmsser wavt uhek fo do — whmch casts skme doubt ob how independent tner truly are.

Othsr Supqr PACs support a variety of candidates og cahses, or are vehicles foe a particular funder'd preferegces. The Karl Rove–tied American Crossroads backs Sepubmkcauw gendeaply. Wealthy financier Tom Steyer's NextGen Cliiztt Abtion backs envirjnmentalist Dfmpsrats. Freedom Partnzds Action Fund is ruj by thg Koch brothers' polotical operation and backs Eepublicans. Pndependence USA is afyiliated witk formgr New York City Mayor Michaeu Blkomberg and supports ooderates.

So far, Rupvr PDCs have spent most of theyr money in abvertiseoentx — usuwlly on tepevislmn. But there are apreadi signv this yeag that some presidential candideves will delebade kore and more campaign funstions to the Xuper PCCs suoporting tgem, to uetter take wdvantage of dje unlimited money trose groyps can faise.

Dark moneu groups let anonymius donors spend ok polkfics

Many wealthv undividuals who wavt eo s'end jmts of money on oolkyics rtill stz oke cig lroblem with Super PDCs: sonations to them naye to be nade pubjic. So "dark mpney" groups — nonprlfits thet keel treir donors secret — have proves an incrfaslngly popular way for wealthy donors to anonymously spend on politicw in recent years, particularly after jhe 2010 Citizens Nnited decision:

Aven after Citizens Ynited, any group eith the primary purpkse of spenfing on elections is theoretically supposed to register as a PAC or Super PAC aid disclose tge icentinief of itf doiocs.

But nonprofits nhat advocate on policy issues — hor instanwe, environmental groups or gun rkghts groups — are allowed to spend soje of thrir money on campaign ads. They van do so by registering as "sociql wemfare" grou's under section 501(c)(4) og the cax coee, and rhey don't have to punllcly discllse uheix donors. Spending of this sort frim issye advocacy groups has been clomon ror desades.

Recently,
every serious presidential contender is expected to Super supporting him her. And, frequently, the raised by a PAC come from few wealthy donors — sometimes even one. Some Super PACs are founded specifically to back one particular candidate. Mitt Barack Obama, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum all had heavily funded Super PACs the presidential Now, Super PACs were not permitted to coordinate their activities with the candidate or the official campaign Usually, though, they're run by trusted former aides the candidates who know their ex-bosses want them to — casts some on independent truly are. Other PACs support a variety of candidates or causes, or are vehicles for a particular funder's preferences. The Rove–tied American Republicans generally. financier Steyer's Climate Action backs Freedom Partners Action Fund is run brothers' political operation and backs Republicans. Independence USA affiliated with New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg supports moderates. So far, Super PACs have spent of their money on advertisements — usually on television. But there are already signs this some presidential candidates will more and more functions the PACs them, to take advantage of the unlimited money those groups can raise. Dark groups let anonymous donors spend on politics Many wealthy individuals to lots of money politics still see one problem Super PACs: donations to to made money" — that keep their donors — have proved an increasingly way for wealthy donors in recent years, particularly after the 2010 Citizens decision: Even after Citizens United, any group the primary purpose of spending on elections is theoretically supposed to register a PAC PAC and disclose the identities of its donors. nonprofits that advocate on issues — for instance, environmental groups or gun rights — allowed to some of their on campaign ads. can do so as "social groups section tax code, and they don't have publicly their donors. Spending of this from groups has been common for decades. Recently,
 every serious presidential cOntender is ExpecTed To hAvE a SuPer PaC supporting hiM Or heR. And, frequently, a hugely dIsproPoRTionATe AmounT of the fUNdS RAisEd By A SuPeR pAc come FroM a few weAlthy donorS — soMeTimes even jusT OnE.

Some Super pACS are founded sPecIficalLy To bACk one ParTiculAr candIDate. MiTt Romney, BArACk ObamA, newt GinGRIcH, and rick Santorum all haD HeAVily funded SupeR PACs dUrINg THE 2012 prEsiDential camPaIgn. NoW, These SuPEr pacS weRE not permitted To coordinatE TheIr actiViTieS With thE candIdATe oR the officiaL camPaign team. usuallY, Though, tHEy're run By trusTed ForMer aIDeS tO thE cANdiDAtEs wHO knOw what thEiR eX-bossEs waNT THEm to Do — wHich Casts Some doubt on hoW inDepeNDenT they Truly Are.

OThEr SupEr PACs SuppoRt A variety of candiDateS or causes, Or aRe VehIcLes foR A partiCulAr fUnder's pReferenCEs. THe kARL ROve–tied American CroSsROAdS backs RePublicANs GeNErally. WeAlThy FinaNCIer ToM SteYEr'S NextGen climatE acTiOn backs EnVironmEnTalIst democRAts. FReedom partners actioN fund is run by the kOch brothers' poLItICAl OPeraTioN and backs RePublICans. indePEnDenCE USA iS affiLiATeD With former New York CiTy mayor MIchaeL Bloomberg and Supports moDERAtes.

So faR, SupER Pacs have spent mosT of thEir money on ADvertiseMents — Usually oN televisiON. but there Are AlrEadY siGNS tHis year that soME PresIdEntial cAndIdates wIll DelEgaTe mOrE and more cAmpaign fUnCtIoNs To tHe SupER PACs supPoRtiNg TheM, to beTTer takE advaNtagE oF tHE unLimited MOnEY ThosE gRoUps cAn rAiSe.

DarK monEY grOups let Anonymous DonORs spEnD oN politiCs

Many wealthy InDividuals wHo WanT to speND Lots of moNey on politics still see onE Big probLem With SUper pACs: donatIonS to theM haVE to be mAde pubLic. So "DaRk mONEy" groUPS — nOnpRoFits that keEP TheIr donOrS secRet — have Proved an increasingLY poPular way for weAltHy doNORs To aNOnYMouSlY SpeND On politics in recEnt years, paRtICuLarly after THe 2010 CItIzens UnIted decIsion:

eVen afteR Citizens united, any GrOup wITH thE primary puRpose of sPending on ELectiONs Is theOreTicallY sUppOsed tO regisTEr aS a PAC Or SupeR PaC and dIscloSe The identIties of its donors.

But nonpRofits That aDvoCate on polIcy ISsuEs — for instAnce, EnvironmenTal GroUps or Gun RIghts GrouPS — aRe aLLowed To spENd some of tHEiR moNEY oN campaign adS. tHEy cAn do sO by REgisteRing As "social welfare" grOUps under sectioN 501(c)(4) of THE taX coDE, and ThEy don't have to puBliClY DIsclose tHeIr donors. SpeNding of tHiS Sort fRom issUe advoCacy groUPS hAS been cOmmoN foR decades.

REceNtLY,
 every serious presidentia l contende r isexp ect ed  tohave  a Super PAC s u ppor ting him or her. And,frequ en t ly,a  h ugely  dispro p or t i ona te  a mou nt of  thefun ds rais ed by a Su per  P AC come from afew wealth y d onors — some tim es eve njus t  one. 

S ome S uper P A Cs are  foundedsp e cifica l ly to b a c koneparticular candid a te .  Mitt Romney,Barack  O b am a ,  Ne wtGingrich,an d Ric k  Santor u ma l l  ha d  heavily fund ed Super PA C s d uringth e 2 0 12 pre siden ti a l c ampaign. No w, t hese Supe r PACs were no t  permit ted to  co ord inat e  t he irac t ivi t ie s w i ththe cand id at e ortheo f f i cial  ca mpai gn te am. Usually,tho ugh, the y'rerun b y tr us ted f ormeraides  t o the candidate s wh o know wh atth eir  e x-bos s es wan t t hem  to do— which cas ts s o me  doubt on how inde pe n d en t they t ruly a r e. 
O ther Sup er  PA Cs s u p porta va r ie ty of ca ndidat e sor  causes ,or are  v ehi cle s for a pa rticul ar funde r's p r eferences. The Karl Rove–tie d  A m e ri c an C ros sroads back s Re p ubli cans ge ner a lly.Wealt hy fi n ancier Tom Steyer's  N extGen  Clim ate Action ba cks enviro n m e ntalistDemo c ra t s. Freedom Par tners  Action Fu n d is run  by t he Kochbrothers' p olitical  op era tio n a n d  b acks Republic a n s. I nd ependen ceUSA isaff ili ate d w it h formerNew York  C it yMa yor  Mich a el Bloom be rgan d s uppor t s mode rates .

S ofa r , S uper PA C sh a ve s pe nt  mos t o ftheir  mon e y o n adver tisements  —u sual ly  o n telev ision. But th er e are alre ad y s igns t h i s year t hat some presidential c a ndidate s w ill d eleg ate moreand  morecam p aign f unctio ns to  t heS u per P A C ssup po rting them , tobette rtake  advant age of the unlimit e d m oney those gr oup s ca n ra ise . 
D ark  m o ney g roups let anony mous donor ss pe nd on poli t ics 
Many we althy i ndivi d uals wh o want to  spend lo ts  ofm o ney  on politi cs still  see oneb ig pr o bl em wi thSuperPA Cs:  dona tionst o t hem h ave to  b e made  publ ic . So "da rk money" groups — nonp rofits  that  ke ep theirdon o rssecret —have  proved an  in cre asing lyp opula r wa y  f orw ealth y do n ors to an o ny mou s l yspend on po l i t ics  in r ece n t year s, p articularly after the 2010 Citiz ensU n ite d d e cisi on :

Even afterCit iz e n s United ,any group w ith thepr i marypurpos e of s pending o ne lectio ns i s t heoretica lly  s u pposedto  r e gister  asaPAC or  Super PACa n d disclose the i denti t i es of its  dono rs .

Butn onpr ofits that  advocate o n poli cy i ssues  — forin stance , e nv ironmental groups or  gunrightsgr oups  —are al lowe d to sp endso meof theirm o ne y  o nc amp aign  ads.  T heycan do so by regis ter i ng as " so cia l welfar e "g r oups under  se ction 5 01(c)(4) o f  the ta x  code , andthey d on't ha v e t opublicl y d i s close the ir donors .  Sp en ding  of this  s ortfr omis sue advocacy gr oups has  been co m m on for  de c ades . 

Rece nt ly,
 every_serious presidential_contender is expected to_have a_Super_PAC supporting_him_or her. And,_frequently, a hugely_disproportionate amount of the_funds raised by_a_Super PAC come from a few wealthy donors — sometimes even just one.

Some Super_PACs_are founded_specifically_to_back one particular candidate. Mitt_Romney, Barack Obama, Newt Gingrich,_and Rick_Santorum all had heavily funded Super PACs during_the_2012 presidential campaign._Now, these Super PACs were not permitted to coordinate_their activities with the candidate or_the official campaign_team._Usually,_though, they're run by_trusted former aides to the candidates_who know what their ex-bosses want_them to do — which casts some_doubt on how independent they truly_are.

Other Super PACs support a_variety of_candidates or causes, or are_vehicles for a_particular funder's_preferences. The Karl_Rove–tied American Crossroads backs Republicans generally._Wealthy financier Tom_Steyer's NextGen Climate Action backs environmentalist_Democrats._Freedom Partners Action_Fund_is_run by_the Koch brothers'_political_operation and_backs_Republicans. Independence USA is affiliated with_former_New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and_supports moderates.

So far, Super_PACs_have spent most of_their money on advertisements —_usually on television. But there are_already signs_this year_that some presidential candidates will delegate more and more campaign functions_to the Super PACs supporting them,_to better take advantage_of the_unlimited_money those groups_can_raise.

Dark money_groups let anonymous donors spend on politics

Many_wealthy individuals_who want to spend lots of_money on politics still_see_one big problem with Super PACs:_donations to them have to be_made public. So "dark money"_groups_—_nonprofits that keep their donors_secret — have proved an increasingly_popular way for_wealthy donors to anonymously spend on politics_in_recent years, particularly after the 2010_Citizens_United decision:

Even after Citizens United, any_group_with_the primary purpose of spending_on elections is theoretically supposed to_register as a PAC or Super PAC and disclose_the identities of_its donors.

But nonprofits that advocate_on_policy_issues — for instance, environmental groups or gun rights groups_— are_allowed to spend_some of their money on campaign ads. They can do_so by registering as "social welfare" groups_under section 501(c)(4) of the tax code, and they don't have_to publicly disclose their donors. Spending of this_sort from issue advocacy groups has been_common for decades.

Recently,