The Most Controversial Super PAC Spending of the Last Decade

by

Most super PAC spending is unremarkable: ads, mail and field staff, disclosed to the FEC and forgotten after Election Day. But a handful of episodes over the last decade tested the edges of the rules or exposed how loosely they are enforced. Below are eight of the most controversial, drawn from both parties and from industry groups that back both.

Our ground rules: every case is documented in FEC filings, court records or named reporting. Where someone alleged wrongdoing, we say who alleged it and whether any authority agreed. We include the strongest defense of each. Inclusion on this list does not mean anything illegal happened; in most of these cases, nothing was ever found to be illegal, which is part of the controversy.

The list

1. "My money that I control": MAGA Inc. (2025–26)

What happened. President Trump's super PAC raised more than $400 million after he won in 2024, almost entirely from seven-figure donors. Trump has said publicly that he controls it, calling its funds "my money that I control" in September 2026 (Campaign Legal Center complaint). Several large donors later received ambassadorships, top federal jobs or pardons for family members (Brennan Center).

The criticism. The Campaign Legal Center filed an FEC complaint arguing that a sitting officeholder may not control a group that raises unlimited money. It is not MAGA Inc.'s first controversy: in 2023 and 2024, Trump's leadership PAC clawed back most of the $60 million it had given MAGA Inc. while it was paying his legal bills (Brennan Center).

The defense. MAGA Inc. called the complaint "frivolous" (GV Wire). No analysis has shown a specific donation bought a specific government action. Full story: Where Has MAGA Inc.'s Money Gone?

2. The $1-million-a-day sweepstakes: America PAC (2024)

What happened. In the final weeks of the 2024 race, Elon Musk's America PAC gave $1 million a day to registered voters in swing states who signed a petition supporting the First and Second Amendments. It also paid people for referring other voters to sign (La Voce di New York).

The criticism. The Justice Department warned the PAC the giveaway could violate federal law, and Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner sued, calling it an illegal lottery (TheWrap). In court it emerged that winners were not drawn at random, as Musk had described publicly (PhillyVoice).

The defense. A Pennsylvania judge let the program continue through Election Day (PhillyVoice). Winners had to agree to serve as spokespeople for the petition, so America PAC argued it was paying for advocacy, not votes, and voters of any party could enter (AP via News-Press Now).

3. Paying the founders' own firms: Future Forward (2024)

What happened. Future Forward, the main super PAC backing Kamala Harris, spent more than $500 million in 2024. FEC records show it paid at least $8.3 million to consulting firms owned by its own leaders, including a survey firm named after its three founders (Lee Fang). A later analysis put payments to one of those firms, GCJ Research, at nearly $18 million from May to October 2024 (Sludge).

The criticism. Self-dealing: donors' money flowing to the people deciding how to spend it, at a group that lost the race it existed to win.

The defense. The arrangement was legal and disclosed. Supporters say the founders' firms built the testing operation that was Future Forward's selling point, and that its leaders had worked with dozens of top Democratic ad agencies (Axios).

4. Moving $82.5 million from a state account: Never Back Down (2023)

What happened. Ron DeSantis's former Florida political committee, which raised money under state rules, sent $82.5 million to Never Back Down, the federal super PAC backing his presidential run (CNN via KTVZ).

The criticism. The Campaign Legal Center told the FEC the transfer was illegal soft money directed by a federal candidate, and filed separate complaints alleging coordination between DeSantis and the super PAC (FactCheck.org).

The defense. DeSantis and Never Back Down denied coordination, and DeSantis had formally cut ties with the state committee before the transfer. The FEC never acted against it. The group itself collapsed in a spectacular internal feud (see our profile).

5. Boosting the other party's extremists: Democratic groups (2022)

What happened. Democratic-aligned groups spent tens of millions of dollars promoting hard-right, election-denying Republicans in GOP primaries, betting they would be easier to beat. Senate Majority PAC ran ads boosting Don Bolduc in New Hampshire, and House Majority PAC promoted a challenger to Rep. David Valadao in California (ABC News, Outside the Beltway).

The criticism. The Washington Post editorial board said the strategy reeked of hypocrisy from a party warning about threats to democracy (Fox News), and 35 former Democratic lawmakers objected (Metro Times).

The defense. It worked. Every Democrat-boosted Republican who won a primary lost in November (CNN). Meddling in the other party's primaries has become common on both sides (HuffPost via Yahoo).

6. Making an example: Fairshake vs. Katie Porter (2024)

What happened. The crypto industry's super PAC spent about $10 million against Rep. Katie Porter in California's 2024 Senate primary, which she lost (The Guardian via Yahoo). The ads did not mention crypto; one claim was rated "mostly false" by the Sacramento Bee (Cointelegraph).

The criticism. An industry spending to punish a critic, without telling voters what the fight was about. The Porter race was widely read in Washington as a warning to other crypto skeptics (Bloomberg via BNN).

The defense. Fairshake says it supports candidates of both parties who embrace innovation and argued voters deserved to know Porter's record. Its network spends on Republicans and Democrats alike.

7. Picking Democratic nominees: United Democracy Project (2024–26)

What happened. AIPAC's super PAC spent more than $14 million in 2024 to defeat Rep. Jamaal Bowman in a New York primary (Mother Jones). In 2026 it was the biggest spender in Michigan's Democratic Senate primary, the most expensive Democratic congressional primary on record; its preferred candidate lost.

The criticism. Progressives say a single-issue group is buying outcomes in Democratic primaries, often with ads that do not mention Israel.

The defense. UDP says it backs candidates of both parties who support the U.S.-Israel relationship, and that its spending is fully disclosed.

8. Hiding the original donor: pass-throughs on both sides (2024–26)

What happened. Super PACs must disclose donors, but a donor can be another group. In 2026 Elon Musk gave $158 million to Senate Leadership Fund, which sent matching amounts to Texas PAC, a group backing Ken Paxton; Texas PAC's own reports show only SLF (TIME). Dark-money nonprofits gave MAGA Inc. more than $21 million (Brennan Center). Senate Majority PAC took more than $113 million from its nonprofit partner Majority Forward in 2024 (see our profiles).

The criticism. Voters reading a super PAC's disclosures may never learn who actually paid. Leadership-aligned super PACs in both parties raised $198 million through dark-money affiliates through June 2026 (Brennan Center).

The defense. All of it is legal under current law, and both parties do it. Defenders of donor privacy argue anonymity protects donors from harassment.

What these cases have in common

The rules are thin and the referee is absent. Several cases turned on questions the FEC never answered: whether a candidate may move state money into a super PAC, how much control an officeholder may have, when "independent" spending is really coordinated. The commission has deadlocked along party lines for much of the super PAC era and has lacked a quorum since May 2025 (Brennan Center). Complaints are filed; few are resolved.

Disclosure tells you less than it seems. Super PACs report their donors, but those donors can be other PACs or nonprofits. Ads can attack a candidate on unrelated issues, so voters never learn why an industry wanted them gone.

Both parties play. The cases above span Republican and Democratic groups and industry PACs that fund both. Each side's examples tend to get attention mainly from the other side's critics. For who is benefiting this year, see The Republicans Getting the Most Super PAC Support in 2026 and The Democrats Getting the Most Super PAC Support in 2026.

The money keeps growing. Independent expenditures hit a record $2 billion through September 2026, up 51 percent from the last midterm after inflation (Brennan Center). Whether that is protected political speech or a corrosive force is a debate this site does not settle; what is not in dispute is that the next list will be longer.

Know of a case we missed? Tell us.

Sources

Leave a Comment