The Citizens United v FEC ruling 10 years ago changed campaign financing dramatically – and is a key reason why 2020 will see big political spending

The 2020 US elections are quickly shaping up as a campaign cycle where political spending will reach staggering new heights.

Some predict 2020 will be the first presidential election where $10bn could be spent on political advertising – almost 60% more than the money-soaked 2016 election.

‘Huge amount of ego’: how Bloomberg and Trump ended up fierce rivals Read more

Billionaires are already playing an outsized role – and not just the occupant of the White House and Democratic candidates Michael Bloomberg and Tom Steyer spending their own fortunes. Some of the wealthiest people and companies in America are weighing into elections by injecting limitless sums of cash at all levels, fueling political action committees (Pacs) and outside groups that don’t have to disclose their donors.

Campaign financing has changed so dramatically since the landmark Citizens United v Federal Election Commission (FEC) ruling handed down by the supreme court exactly 10 years ago that the former president Jimmy Carter called it legalized bribery.

The Citizens United decision removed limits on political communication spending from corporations, unions and not-for-profit organizations acting independently of the candidates’ own campaigns, ruling it was effectively a form of free speech.

Citizens United gave rise to the current role Super Pacs and so-called dark money outside groups – where the origins of their funds are opaque – have in statewide and national campaigns. And it’s a key reason why the 2020 presidential election is expected to see another eye-popping increase in political spending.

“It’s effectively taken control of the message away from candidates and put it in to the hands of outside groups. So a candidate in a competitive race is now one voice competing with multiple other voices and in most cases is now a less powerful voice from the standpoint of other outside groups engaged in a race,” said Phil Cox, a veteran Republican strategist.

It effectively helps protect incumbents, limits more substantive messaging and likely leads to more negative campaigns Phil Cox

He added: “It’s the reason why you have more self-funding millionaires and billionaires running for office. It’s a system that effectively helps protect incumbents, limits more substantive messaging and likely leads to more negative campaigns.”

An analysis by GroupM, the advertising unit of WPP, projected that in 2020 political ad spending would rise to $9.9bn. In 2016 it was $3.6bn, already a large increase from previous presidential cycles.

A report from OpenSecrets found that political spending by outside groups had grown to $4.5bn over a decade, up from $750m in the previous two decades, and eclipsing candidates’ own spending in hundreds of races.

And outside group spending is noticeably bipartisan. According to figures provided to the Guardian by the progressive not-for-profit group Acronym, prominent liberal and conservative outside groups collectively spent more than $8.6m on Facebook ads in the past 90 days.

And just last week a top official for US business tycoon Charles Koch - the world’s 11th richest man in 2019, according to Forbes – said the conservative billionaire’s network of political groups could get involved in almost 200 federal and state elections around the US.

Meanwhile, a liberal dark money group closely linked to the progressive congresswomen Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently spent $20,000 on ads against the former vice-president and leading 2020 moderate Democrat Joe Biden, targeting voters in South Carolina.

In the 2020 presidential arena, former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg has said he’s willing to pay as much as $1bn to help Democrats defeat Donald Trump, even if Bloomberg isn’t the Democratic nominee. Even though Bloomberg is one of the newest candidates to enter the party’s primary, he has already poured $200m into television and digital ads to elevate his name identification and poll numbers.

Bloomberg was recently given an extension on filing financial disclosure information until 20 March, weeks after the Super Tuesday cluster of primary contests, by which time the Democratic nominating contest could already be decided.

Tom Steyer has spent more than $120m in advertising to boost his campaign, according to an NPR analysis. Together with Bloomberg, the two billionaires have spent $320m of the $409.8m Democratic candidates in the large – though shrinking – primary field have poured into advertising so far in the race.

Wealthy candidates who lean on their personal fortunes to fuel their presidential campaigns is not a new aspect of campaigning or a result of Citizens United. But the spending by Bloomberg and Steyer plus the absence of limitations on spending for outside groups marks the new reality political operatives face.

The war chests of these two have allowed them to outlast several other candidates, with the most noticeable recent examples being Julián Castro, Kamala Harris and Cory Booker, who came into the race with higher political profiles but less money.

Montana’s governor, Steve Bullock, a former 2020 Democratic presidential candidate who made opposition to dark money a pillar of his campaign, warned that the Citizens United ruling has hurt campaigning for office and governing. He pointed to a statistic from the Issue One not-for-profit group that said members of Congress have spent more than 1,600,000 hours spending money “instead of doing their jobs”.

I think we can say without any reservation that Citizens United has been a train wreck for representative democracy Steve Bullock

“On the 10th anniversary I think we can say without any reservation that Citizens United has been a train wreck for representative democracy,” Bullock said. “It’s been a train wreck for actual campaigns. It’s been a train wreck for actual governing and for people’s trust in the system.”

Critics of the Citizens United ruling and advocates of increasing transparency in political spending argue that the center of gravity has shifted.

Adam Bozzi, the communications director for the End Citizens United Pac, warned that outside spending by groups that don’t have to disclose their donors will probably only increase.

“I think it’s going to affect this upcoming cycle in the same way that’s affected the last several cycles, just a higher order of magnitude,” Bozzi said, adding that “the amount of money a mega-donor can throw in has paralyzed Congress. And it’s not even – it’s one donor that has the ability to throw $10m into a race.”

He added: “So candidates or members of Congress are afraid to step outside their lane and sign on to a bill or work with someone on the other side of the aisle or even take a position or give a speech because they’re afraid that there will be $10m in a pot to spend against them the next day.”

But Bozzi pointed out that 2018 and 2020 have also been marked by a rising movement against big-dollar fundraising and Super Pacs.

“The good news is there’s a growing movement to stop it and there’s been progress,” Bozzi said.

Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have run presidential campaigns funded without high-dollar fundraisers or donations from corporate Pacs and a strong distaste for Super Pacs or outside group support.

Mark Brewer, an attorney and former chairman of the Michigan Democratic party, cautioned though that may only last as long as the Democratic primary.

“There’s going to be all these independent groups out there on both sides,” Brewer said. “And the candidates can’t stop it.”