This election cycle is flush with outside spending. As of today, super PACs, social welfare 501(c)(4) groups, trade associations, unions, parties and others (corporations, individuals etc) have spent $203.4 million this cycle. By this time in 2014, they’d spent less than half that much, Center for Responsive Politics data show, and in 2012 the number was just $61.9 million.

Outside spending for and against Hillary Clinton by single-candidate super PACs dominates the 2016 Democratic presidential primary.

Outside spending for former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush still dominates on the GOP side, even after his super PAC fundraising recently fell off a cliff.

Super PACs, which can take unlimited amounts from virtually any source but must disclose their donors, have gotten an early start this cycle. On this date in 2012 and 2014, there were only 43 and 58 active super PACs, respectively. Today, that number has grown to 84. So far, they’ve laid out $189.1 million, more than 300 percent more than they’d spent by this time in the last presidential election.

Among 501(c)(4) dark money groups – so-called because they aren’t required to disclose their donors – 21 fewer are active so far this election cycle compared with 2012, a total of 28 groups. Even though there are many fewer groups this cycle, however, they’ve spent almost three times as much: $4.2 million versus $1.4 million. All nondisclosing groups (including (c)(4) organizations) have spent $8.7 million so far, compared with $4.9 million at this point in 2012.

And that’s only going to soar, if the pattern of 2012 repeats itself. By the time that election was over, groups that don’t disclose their donors had spent $308.7 million — 63 times their Feb. 12 number.

There are almost twice as many conservative dark money groups as there are liberal.

Help us keep government accountable by making a donation today.

These conservative groups are spending almost 10.5 times the amount the liberal groups are. That’s similar to what happened in 2012, but the difference between conservative and liberal spending is more exaggerated.

(Caveat: Outside spending is, by nature, murky. Corporations and unions can support candidates as long as they are not coordinating with the campaigns. This support often takes the form of television advertising — not all of which is reported to the FEC, depending on who’s sponsoring the ads and when they run.)

Presidential candidates aren’t the only ones attracting outside spending this cycle.

Club for Growth, US Chamber of Commerce and Americans for Prosperity (AFP) are among the biggest groups weighing in on House and Senate races this year. Ted Strickland, a Democrat running for an Ohio Senate seat, is prey for both the Chamber of Commerce and AFP, the latter of which is the flagship dark money spending group in the Koch network. The Chamber has spent more than $525,000 and AFP almost $1.6 million attacking him, Center for Responsive Politics data show. While Strickland had a slim lead over the Republican incumbent, Sen. Rob Portman, back in June, if money talks, he’s unlikely to maintain that going forward. Portman’s campaign outraised Strickland’s by $12 million in 2015.

Club for Growth has spent a large chunk – $691,000 – on negative ads against Democratic Wisconsin senatorial candidate Russ Feingold., and another $41,000 supporting his Republican opponent, Sen. Ron Johnson. It has also helped support the GOP candidate for Senate in Florida, Ron DeSantis, and the Republican incumbent in Pennsylvania, Sen. Pat Toomey, to the tune of $18,846 and $12,816, respectively.

The Chamber has also spent $500,000 apiece on Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) and Toomey; $400,150 on Rep. Joe Heck; and $350,150 each on Sens. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.).



Some congressional candidates are getting hit by outside spending groups dedicated to them and them alone: Unifying America PAC, which is funded entirely by USFluence Group, has spent $40,000 against incumbent Rep. Dan Donovan (R-N.Y.). And Portman has received $14,000 in backing from the super PAC Fighting for Ohio Fund.



Political Nonprofits Investigator Robert Maguire contributed to this story.

Correction Feb. 16: This post has been updated to reflect the fact that Unifying America PAC has spent $40,000 against, not for, Rep. Dan Donovan. Also, the second chart has been updated to show slightly more spending against Hillary Clinton. We regret the errors. In addition, the title of the third chart has been changed for clarity.



For permission to reprint for commercial uses, such as textbooks, contact the Center: Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics.For permission to reprint for commercial uses, such as textbooks, contact the Center: [email protected]





Support Accountability Journalism At OpenSecrets.org we offer in-depth, money-in-politics stories in the public interest. Whether you’re reading about 2020 presidential fundraising, conflicts of interest or “dark money” influence, we produce this content with a small, but dedicated team. Every donation we receive from users like you goes directly into promoting high-quality data analysis and investigative journalism that you can trust.Please support our work and keep this resource free. Thank you. Support OpenSecrets ➜