Inside the progressive push to dismantle the super PAC system
By Michael Jones
By the time Rep. Thomas Massie lost his Republican primary by double digits last week, millions of dollars from MAGA-aligned groups and pro-Israel organizations had turned a Kentucky House race into the most expensive congressional primary in American history.
To Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.), the outcome underscored a deeper problem unfolding across American politics. Despite their policy disagreements with the libertarian Massie, both lawmakers agree that wealthy interests and super PACs now wield so much financial power that outside groups can reshape elections from afar while ordinary voters struggle to cut through the noise.
Sanders and Lee say the problem extends far beyond attack ads or eye-popping fundraising totals. In their view, the super PAC era has fundamentally altered who can run for office, how candidates campaign and whether ordinary voters still believe the political system belongs to them at all.
They believe that massive outside spending increasingly forces candidates to court wealthy benefactors while flooding elections with disinformation and negative advertising, leaving many Americans cynical about participating in politics altogether.
“I can tell you that every time a negative ad drops on air, it disenfranchises a voter. It reinforces this idea that there are no good politicians, that politics is inherently evil, and that it is a rigged game that regular people shouldn’t get in,” Lee told me. “But also what it does is it ensures that Black and brown and poor and working-class people are less likely to be able to break it in the first place.”
Sanders argued the current political environment discourages ordinary people from seeking office altogether by making candidates fear overwhelming outside spending, relentless personal attacks and disinformation campaigns if they challenge entrenched political or economic interests.
“We believe in democracy. We want people to run for office and give a damn what your political view is. Get involved, stand up, and defend yourself,” he told me. “But how many people are going to do that where they have millions and millions of ugly dollars in ugly ads? There’s gonna be a lot of hesitancy. It takes very brave people to run.”
Sanders and Lee’s solution is the Abolish Super PACs Act, legislation they introduced last week to place a $5,000 annual cap on individual contributions to super PACs, effectively dismantling the unlimited-donor model that exploded after the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision and subsequent federal court rulings.
The lawmakers argue the current system has enabled billionaires, corporations and powerful interest groups to pour unprecedented sums into federal elections with little meaningful restraint.
The bill arrives as outside spending tied to crypto interests, AI investors, and AIPAC-aligned groups is already shaping the 2026 midterms. Sanders pointed to Elon Musk’s roughly $290 million in political spending during the 2024 election cycle, along with vast sums in broader billionaire spending as evidence that the country is drifting toward what he describes as oligarchic politics rather than representative democracy.
But the proposal faces extraordinarily steep odds in a Republican-controlled Congress and would almost certainly trigger major constitutional challenges if enacted. Still, Sanders’ involvement marks a meaningful step forward for legislation that began last year as a House-only effort led by Lee and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.).
By relaunching the bill alongside one of the most recognizable figures in progressive politics, Lee said she believes the campaign against super PAC money is reaching voters at a moment when Americans are increasingly connecting economic frustration and political dysfunction to the influence of wealthy donors and outside groups. The renewed push also comes as public skepticism toward big money in politics remains deeply bipartisan, even as both parties continue relying heavily on super PAC infrastructure to compete in modern elections.
“I think that there are Americans of every stripe right now who are looking at our government and they’re ashamed, they’re disgusted, they’re discouraged, and as they’re starting to organize what they actually want it or believe it should look like,” Lee told me, “We need to make sure that they understand how integral this piece is to that.”
However, the deeper test for Democrats may not be whether Republicans block bills like the Abolish Super PACs Act, but whether Democrats themselves are willing to fundamentally rethink the political incentives that shape modern campaigns should they return to power.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) has already elevated anti-corruption proposals such as a congressional stock trading ban, campaign finance reform and Supreme Court reform as part of Democrats’ broader argument for reclaiming the House. But Lee acknowledged that turning those campaign promises into governing priorities would require Democrats to confront uncomfortable questions about their own relationships with wealthy donors, corporate influence and the super PAC system they increasingly rely on to compete.
Lee argued that many Democrats genuinely support policies like universal health care and broader economic reforms, but operate within a political ecosystem where industries and outside groups can effectively shape political behavior by helping make or break congressional careers.
“I think there are many members of Congress who actually, in their hearts, do want to do the right thing. They didn’t come here because they wanted to serve the fossil fuel industry, the crypto industry, or whatever it may be,” Lee said. “But I think it’s very easy here, and incredibly incentivized to get off track, right? And we want to take away that opportunity to get off track.”
Michael Jones is an independent Capitol Hill correspondent and contributor for COURIER. He is the author of Once Upon a Hill, a newsletter about Congressional politics.
