In 2010, Citizens United held that corporations have a First Amendment right to spend sums independently to support or oppose candidates for office. Instead, large expenditures, usually through "Super PACS," have come from "a small group of billionaires", base… Section 203 stated that “electioneering communication as a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentioned a candidate within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary, and prohibited …

Critics predicted that the ruling would "bring about a new era of corporate influence in politics," allowing companies and businesspeople to "buy elections" to promote their financial interests. 1. January 21, 2020 will mark a decade since the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, a controversial decision that reversed century-old campaign finance restrictions and enabled corporations and other outside groups to spend unlimited funds on elections. And in McCutcheon v. FEC (2014), the U.S. Supreme Court swept away the previous prohibition on individuals contributing more than $48,600 combined to all federal candidates and more than $74,600 combined to all parties and super PACs. Citizens United v. FEC (2010), was a U.S. Supreme Court case that established that section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) violated the first amendment right of corporations. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is a 2010 Supreme Court decision that restored some of the First Amendment rights of corporations and unions that had been restricted under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. A major effect of the Citizens United decision is the birth of “Super PACs,” or a type of independent political action committee which may raise unlimited sums of money from corporations, unions, and individuals.

I took a deep breath and explained for what felt like the 100th time the impact of Citizens United v. FEC and the $1 billion in political funding that groups that do not disclose their donors have spent in the decade since that decision, also known as “dark money.” The FEC exempts media organizations from campaign-finance laws even though many of them — such as The Washington Post — traffic heavily in political news and views. The lower-court case used the Citizens United case as precedent when it said that limits on contributions to groups that make independent expenditures are unconstitutional. Countless pundits and politicians decry the landmark Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling for making federal elections murkier than ever, but nine years later, the impact of the 2010 Supreme Court decision has never been clearer.
The Citizens United ruling "opened the door" for unlimited election spending by corporations, but most of this spending has "ended up being funneled through the groups that have become known as super PACs." The FEC, Olson wrote, "should conclude that Citizens United’s documentary film activities are covered by both the media and commercial transaction exceptions."
And that’s what led to the creation of the super PACs, which act as shadow political parties. This chart details all spending by outside groups from 1990-2014.