Money and U.S. politics. They go together like cereal and milk or Mariah Carey and Christmas. In Washington, D.C., the power brokers are typically the ones who benefit from donations made by those who would benefit most from that power. But where’s the line separating supporting like-minded lawmakers and a bribe?
A recent report on Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, told of a relationship between her political action committee, or PAC, that appeared to blur the lines of campaign financing. Even though the group was accused of a potential quid pro quo with a federal contractor, it all might’ve been completely legal when it comes to how this system is set up.
Download the Straight Arrow app today to get the stories that matter free from manipulation, bias or agenda.™
Point phone camera here
She’s not the first, nor the last, to face questions surrounding campaign cash and the relationships brokered by super PACs.
PACs
Tens of billions of dollars flow through each election cycle, with a large chunk of that going to candidates seeking public office.
That money usually comes into their PACs. They can also get support through a Super PAC, which cannot give directly to a candidate but can spend unlimited money to help a campaign. There are also rules against a candidate coordinating with PACs, though they’re not rigorously enforced unless someone flags an issue.
The first PAC was formed in 1944 by a labor union. Their goal was to get former President Franklin D. Roosevelt reelected.
Just a few years later, the Taft-Hartley Act made it illegal for corporations or labor unions to spend money on federal elections.
That changed with the Supreme Court’s landmark Citizens United decision in 2010, which interpreted corporations and other organizations as having a right to use donations as a form of free speech. That allowed corporations and unions to spend as much money as they want.
That created the Super PAC, which can take unlimited contributions from virtually anyone.
“A Super PAC is a PAC that does not actually give money to candidates,” Richard Briffault, law professor at Columbia University, told Straight Arrow. “It spends money independently in support of or in opposition to candidates.”
Recent Accusations
The recent ProPublica report involves 1820 PAC, named after the year Maine gained statehood, which backs Collins.
The report portrays in great detail a quid pro quo situation in which the leader of 1820 PAC solicited a $500,000 contribution from a Hawaii-based tech firm called Navatek.
Eventually, Navatek gave $150,000 right after Collins had helped them secure an $8 million Navy contract.
Federal investigators were looking heavily into potential illegalities in this situation, but those investigative teams were gutted by the second Trump administration amid his purge of agents he said weaponized the federal government.
Representatives from the Collins campaign and the PAC deny any illegalities, despite the optics of the timing ProPublica lays out.
The scrutiny of PAC spending isn’t limited by party or geography.
In California, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass has allegedly convinced donor companies to send money to some of her favorite charities and other third-party organizations. But some of those companies may have millions of dollars in business riding on the city, which is a conflict of interest.
President Donald Trump has also faced scrutiny for potential quid pro quo arrangements involving his Super PACs.
One high-profile example involves foreign billionaire Julio Herrera Velutini, who faced federal bribery charges. His daughter funneled $3.5 million to MAGA Inc. Trump pardoned Velutini five months later.
Reporting also shows many companies that donated big money to Trump’s White House ballroom received billions of dollars in government contracts.
Like the conversations that took place in Maine, the law allows situations that might otherwise seem questionable on their face.
Legal gray area
“Unless you can show that there was a literal deal, there’s no problem,” Briffault said. “If you can actually show that somebody said, ‘I will give you this money if you get me this contract,’ that’s a crime. If public officials do things for their contributors, that’s politics.”
While the optics involving pay-for-play and PACs may seem pretty clear to the average American, it’s difficult to actually prove in court.
That difficulty mostly comes from the Supreme Court.
“The Supreme Court has pretty much required that there be a deal, as opposed to reciprocity,” Briffault said.
The 1991 decision McCormick v. United States ruled that the government must prove an explicit quid pro quo to constitute a crime.
In 2024, the court also tightened the legal definition of bribery.
Snyder v. United States ruled that federal bribery laws do not criminalize gratuities, meaning donations to public officials for an act already done.
“People in public office do things for their friends, and people give money to public officials who’ve done things for them,” Briffault said. “Doesn’t have to be a deal.”
Just because proving this crime is tough and rare doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. Had Trump not intervened, Collins’ situation seemed like a pretty clear crime to most experts.
Former lobbyist Jack Abramoff received a four-month prison sentence in 2008 for explicitly giving money and gifts to politicians in exchange for legislation to benefit him and his clients. Two Republican Congressmen also pled guilty in that case, including Robert Ney, who received a 30-month prison sentence.
Change coming?
With some clear flaws, has there been any push to change the way this system works?
In a word, no.
“The Supreme Court has made it hard to regulate the system,” Briffault said. “The Supreme Court consistently in the last 20 years, in many ways, in the last 50 years, has struck down all sorts of restrictions on campaign contributions and campaign spending, so it’s actually very hard to regulate the system, and it’s not clear there are a lot of legal tools.”
Even thoughts of long-term reform seem doubtful since this has been the way it works for most of American history.
“The election system does depend on money, like it or not,” Briffault said. “Candidates do need to campaign. They need to get their message out. The real issue we face is who’s giving that money, and what are they getting for it, whether directly or indirectly. That’s our system, like it or not.”
