The dawn of a new age: Outside groups have outspent campaigns in most key 2014 races When George W. Bush was first elected president, outside spending didn't exceed candidate spending in even one race. In 2002, the same. By 2008, only four races -- including Senate contests in New Hampshire, Mississippi and Oregon -- had outside groups spending more than the people vying to head to Washington. The groups were mostly unions, gun groups and business interests, as you might expect. Then, in 2010, Citizens United happened. For two cycles in a row now (2012 and 2014), more than 30 federal campaigns have seen more spending from outside groups than by candidates, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics. What's more, the average amount by which the outside groups have outspent the campaigns has spiked. In 2008, it was high, but there were only four races. In 2014, 36 federal contests saw outside groups put, on average, $7.7 million more into races than the candidates. That figure includes 35 Senate and House races plus early spending on presidential races. In those 36 races, candidate campaigns have been outspent by a combined $278 million, compared to $92 million only two years ago. The races in 2014 comprise 7 percent of the federal races on the ballot. It's not the boring races where there's no actual contest where groups weigh in. Those races will stay boring. Of the 35 (non-presidential) races that fit the category this year, nearly every one is listed as a toss-up or "lean" district by the Cook Political Report. Meaning that the races that are most likely to decide the composition of the House are those most likely to have seen spending from outside groups than from candidates. This isn't a surprise; of course groups want to invest in races that they can influence or win (although spending alone doesn't guarantee a win, of course). But it means that the messages that voters hear in those races -- the mail, the TV spots, even the people knocking on doors -- are more likely to be from a group with a specific, often narrow agenda rather than from the candidates themselves. We explored this in July, wondering how far we were from a campaign orchestrated entirely (or nearly entirely) by political action committees and other outside groups. Among the possibilities: Candidates will more easily be able to step into the shadows and not actually, you know, campaign. If the pattern over the last few cycles stands up, we might wonder about a corollary to that idea: What happens when control of a branch of Congress is decided by outside groups -- when clusters of candidates win thanks to a push from an outside group that then plans to hold the politicians accountable to their agenda? At some point, it seems, we'll see.