Sanders Urges Democrats To End Super PACs

How Bernie Sanders Can Help Democrats End Super PACs in 2026 Ever wonder why a candidate with massive grassroots support sometimes feels like they're fighting a losing battle against a mountain of cash? It's a frustrating sight. You see the rallies, you see the passion, and then you see the television ads that seem to come from nowhere. It's not a glitch in the system.

It's the system working exactly how it was designed to. For years, the political landscape has been shaped by massive influxes of money that don't come from individual voters. Instead, they come from entities that can spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections. Bernie Sanders has made this a central part of his crusade for decades, and as we move through 2026, his push to dismantle these giants is reaching a fever pitch.

What Are Super PACs Actually Doing To understand why Bernie Sanders is so vocal about this, we have to look at what a Super PAC actually is. In the simplest terms, these are political action committees that can raise unlimited sums of money from corporations, unions, and individuals. Unlike traditional PACs, which have strict limits on how much they can give directly to a candidate, Super PACs are independent. They aren't allowed to coordinate directly with a campaign, but they can spend as much as they want on "independent expenditures.

" The Illusion of Independence This is where things get messy. The law says they can't coordinate. But, the line between a campaign and a Super PAC is often incredibly thin. We see candidates appointing former staffers to run these committees.

We see the same consultants working for both sides. It creates a loophole large enough to drive a private jet through. The result is a shadow campaign that operates with zero accountability to the voters. They can run the most aggressive, most negative ads imaginable, and the candidate can maintain a shred of "plausible deniability" because they technically didn't authorize the spending.

The Power of Dark Money Then there is the issue of dark money*. This refers to funds given to non-profit groups that then funnel that money into Super PACs. Because these non-profits aren't required to disclose their donors, we often have no idea who is actually paying for the political messaging hitting our screens. It could be a single billionaire or a massive conglomerate.

We just see the ad, and we don't know whose interests are being served. Why This Matters for Democracy in 2026 Why is this such a massive deal right now? Because the influence of these committees has reached a point where it's arguably drowning out the voices of actual citizens. When a handful of billionaires can spend hundreds of millions to sway an election, the concept of "one person, one vote" starts to feel like a polite fiction.

It changes what candidates talk about. It changes which issues get prioritized. Policy Distortion When a Super PAC is heavily invested in a specific outcome, they don't just support a candidate; they shape the platform. If a massive energy corporation is funding a Super PAC, that PAC will ensure the candidate stays "moderate" on environmental regulations.

It's a subtle form of coercion. Candidates aren't necessarily being "bought" in a smoky room, but they are being incentivized to follow a certain path to keep the funding flowing. This leads to a political environment where systemic change is incredibly difficult to achieve because the status quo is so well-funded. Voter Cynicism There's a psychological toll here, too.

When people see endless, expensive, and often vitriolic ads funded by anonymous sources, they stop believing that their vote matters. They see a political system that feels rigged by wealth, and they opt out entirely. This cynicism is a poison for a functioning democracy. It leads to lower turnout and a feeling that the entire process is just a high-stakes game played by the elite.

How Sanders Wants to Fix the System Bernie Sanders isn't just complaining about the problem; he's proposing a structural overhaul. His approach isn't about a single quick fix. It's about a fundamental shift in how we fund the democratic process. Publicly Funded Elections One of the primary pillars of his argument is the move toward small-donor, publicly funded elections.

The idea is to create a system where candidates are incentivized to talk to regular people rather than massive donors. Imagine a system where a candidate can run a viable campaign simply by collecting small donations from thousands of citizens, supplemented by public funds. This would level the playing field and make the "wealth test" for candidacy much less daunting. Overturning Citizens United You can't talk about Super PACs without talking about the Supreme Court.

The 2010 Citizens United v. FEC* decision is the bedrock of the current system. It ruled that corporate funding of independent political expenditures is a form of protected speech. Sanders has long advocated for a constitutional amendment to overturn this ruling.

More coverage: C.J. Gardner-Johnson Leaves Practice on Cart with Injury and Hawks, Roos Finalize Teams for Crucial Clash.

He argues that money is not speech, and corporations are not people. To him, the only way to truly end the era of Super PACs is to strike the legal foundation they stand on. Increased Transparency and Disclosure Even if we can't overturn the Supreme Court overnight, Sanders pushes for much stricter disclosure laws. He wants to pull back the curtain on dark money.

If a group is spending millions to influence an election, the public has a right to know exactly where that money came from. Transparency is a tool for accountability. If you know who is paying for the ad, you can judge the message for what it really is. Common Mistakes in the Debate When people discuss this, they often fall into a few traps.

Understanding these helps clarify why the fight is so difficult. First, people often think that banning Super PACs would immediately stop the flow of money. It's unlikely. Money is like water; if you block one path, it finds another.

If we banned Super PACs but didn't address the underlying issue of campaign finance, the money would just move into even more opaque channels. Another mistake is the "coordination" argument. Many people think that if we just had better rules about how much a campaign can "talk" to a Super PAC, the problem would be solved. But as we've seen, the loophole is already being exploited through former staff and shared consultants.

You can't regulate your way out of a system that is designed to bypass regulation. Finally, there's the misconception that this is a partisan issue. While Democrats are currently more vocal about it, the influence of concentrated wealth affects the entire political spectrum. It's not just about one party; it's about the integrity of the institution itself.

What Actually Works for Real Change So, if we want to move past this, what is the path forward? It's not easy, and it won't happen in a single election cycle. Grassroots Mobilization The most effective weapon against Super PACs is a massive, organized grassroots movement. When millions of people are engaged and willing to donate small amounts, the relative power of a billionaire's check decreases.

It's a numbers game. The more people who are invested in the process, the harder it is for a few wealthy interests to hijack the narrative. State-Level Experiments We are already seeing progress at the state level. Some states have implemented "democracy vouchers" or other forms of public financing for local and state elections.

These programs give citizens a way to participate directly in funding the candidates they want to see in office. These are the laboratories of democracy. If they work at the state level, they provide a blueprint for the federal level. Legislative Incrementalism We shouldn't dismiss the power of small, incremental wins.

Stricter disclosure requirements for non-profits and more rigorous enforcement of existing coordination rules are vital. It's not the final solution, but it's a way to make the current system slightly less opaque while we fight for the bigger changes. FAQ Is it illegal for a Super PAC to work with a candidate? Yes, technically.

They are legally required to remain independent. Nonetheless, the definition of "coordination" is very narrow, allowing for many practices that feel like coordination to the average observer. Can a Supreme Court ruling be overturned? Yes, but it requires a Constitutional Amendment.

This is an incredibly high bar that requires significant political will and a supermajority in both houses of Congress and ratification by the states. Why can't we just limit the amount of money in politics? The Supreme Court has currently ruled that limiting political spending is a violation of the First Amendment's protection of free speech. Until that precedent is changed, direct limits on independent spending are likely unconstitutional.

Does dark money only benefit one party? No. While different groups may favor different candidates, the mechanism of using non-profits to hide donor identities is used by interests across the political spectrum to influence policy and elections. The battle over Super PACs is really a battle over who has the final say in our government.

Is it the person who casts the ballot, or the person who writes the check? As we figure out 2026, the tension between these two forces will only continue to grow. It's a fight that will define the next decade of American politics.