As the 2026 midterm elections approach, candidates across Iowa are increasingly distancing themselves from the political establishment by opposing the Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
In a 5-4 decision, the court overturned longstanding campaign finance restrictions by recognizing political spending as a form of protected free speech. It ushered in an unprecedented wave of spending from major donors in federal elections.
“The ruling allowed for ‘outside’ political groups, such as Super PACs and 501(c)s, to receive unlimited amounts of money from individuals, corporations, labor unions, etc. that they would then spend to try and influence the way the American people vote,” said AP US Government teacher Joe Youngbauer. “These ‘outside’ political groups can’t give money directly to candidates or political parties but they still have tremendous power through the media to sway American voters.”
Although super PACs—political action committees that are not bound by spending limits—are required to disclose their donors, they are allowed to accept money from dark money organizations, whose original funding sources are often difficult to trace.
From 2010 to 2022, super PACs spent approximately $6.4 billion on federal elections. Spending by dark money groups has also risen sharply, increasing from less than $5 million in 2006 to more than $1 billion during the 2024 election cycle.
Critics argue the surge in campaign spending has weakened grassroots organizing efforts and reduced the political influence of average voters.
At a forum hosted by End Citizens United and Progress Iowa, Democratic candidates for the U.S. Senate, including Zach Wahls and Josh Turek, identified corporate influence in politics as a central campaign issue.
“When we first launched this campaign last year, the corruption and the influence of the special interests and the billionaires and the big corporations emerged very quickly as one of the biggest concerns that Iowans face all over our state,” Wahls said at the forum. “It is an enormous problem. We have to confront it head on.”
On the Republican side, Ashley Hinson is the presumptive Republican nominee for Iowa’s U.S. Senate race. The Senate Leadership Fund, a major Republican super PAC, plans to spend $29 million supporting Hinson’s campaign.
At the congressional level, Christina Bohanna, the presumptive Democratic nominee for Iowa’s 1st congressional District, has pledged to overturn Citizens United if elected.
Recent calls from Democratic lawmakers to overturn the ruling reflect a broader attempt to distance themselves from establishment politics. Candidates such as Kamala Harris and Hillary Clinton, both often viewed by voters as establishment figures, lost presidential elections to Donald Trump, who campaigned as a political outsider.
To Youngbauer, their desire to stray away from the establishment may dampen itself in the midst of large amounts of spending. “While the increasing amounts of money in campaigns has the possibility to provide more information regarding candidates and elections, I also think that it can alienate voters who want no part of the electoral circus that can be caused by the amount and content of ads,” Younbauer said.
However, efforts to criticize a ruling tied to large-scale campaign spending may also risk alienating some rural voters who remain skeptical of establishment-backed political messaging.
Senior Griffin Cotton will be a first-time voter this upcoming November. “When I see so many advertisements bought by PAC’s, it sometimes discourages me from voting for them in the first place,” Cotton said. “With unlimited spending, the frequency of these inauthentic messages will only increase.”
The future of Citizens United is unclear, but the dramatic increase in campaign spending suggests that a new era of elections, that prioritizes money above all else, is already here.
