For those concerned about our country's never-ending political campaigns, the August congressional recess offers no reprieve. Despite a 15-month distance from the midterm elections, expect the politicking to go up a notch. And as the politicking intensifies, so will its fuel: money.

But here is something that may surprise you: In the 2018 election cycle, corporations don't appear likely to spend big – or at least not to the extent that many might think. As a sign, look to some new data revealing that, in the 2016 and 2014 elections, corporations largely sat on the sidelines.

Corporate America's passivity flies in the face of conventional wisdom and expectations following the landmark Supreme Court decision, Citizens United. The ruling enabled corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money to support candidates and to make unlimited contributions to Super PACs. It also granted the same latitude to labor unions and other associations.

Instead of the expected avalanche of money from corporate America, individual donors remain the primary contributors to Super PACs. In 2016, their donations accounted for 68 percent of total receipts, according to recently released data by the Committee for Economic Development. Corporations made up just six percent of Super PAC donations. Also surprising, so did labor unions – about six percent. The rest came from small amounts by trade associations and other interest groups.

The Citizens United ruling went beyond permitting corporations to spend unlimited amounts on Super PACs. It also allowed for unlimited independent political expenditures by corporations, labor unions and other associations. For example, corporations can pay for advertising campaigns and mail programs that support candidates, so long as they do so without coordinating with the candidates they support. But the research tells us that here, too, business opted to not engage. In the 2016 cycle, no major corporation or publicly held company financed independent political expenditures in support of a candidate. Trade associations and privately held companies did spend, but their donations, when combined, made up less than five percent of the independent spending reported.

While this new data offers a wealth of insights, it does not tell us everything about the new campaign finance landscape.

First, it does not explain why the business community has not participated to the extent that many anticipated. We speculate that reputational risk is at least part of the answer. With the rise of social media, corporations are held more responsible than ever before for their political activities and positions. Furthermore, corporations may be choosing to focus their resources on influencing public policy through advocacy and lobbying, not elections.

Also, we still lack information about the sources behind "dark money" spent by nonprofit groups that do not report the sources of their funding. Dark money makes up a small fraction of election spending but undoubtedly creates mistrust toward business, our campaign finance system, and our democracy. Spending by these groups reduces the accountability in our political process and makes it impossible for voters to know who is behind the information they receive in campaign marketing. Now that groups have demonstrated that they can keep their sources of funding secret while spending millions of dollars, we expect that more dark money will flow into our elections unless action is taken to address this problem.