I presume "new" is an oblique reference to the Citizens United v FEC Supreme Court case[1], which, to quote a portion of the enWikipedia article: >In addition

I presume "new" is an oblique reference to the Citizens United v FEC Supreme Court case[1], which, to quote a portion of the enWikipedia article: >In addition to indirectly providing support for the creation of super PACs, Citizens United allowed incorporated 501(c)(4) public advocacy groups (such as the National Rifle Association, the Sierra Club, and the group Citizens United itself) and trade associations to make expenditures in political races. Such groups may not, under the tax code, have a primary purpose of engaging in electoral advocacy. These organizations must disclose their expenditures, but unlike super PACs they do not have to include the names of their donors in their FEC filings. Or, quoting OpenSecrets[2]: >Essentially, Citizens United allowed 501(c)(4) groups to participate in political activities just like other groups already had been doing. But, unlike most of the other groups, which are under the oversight of the Federal Election Commission and must disclose their contributors and expenditures, 501(c)(4)s fall are overseen by the IRS. They must make filings with the FEC when they spend money explicitly advocating for or against a candidate, as well as when they buy issue ads that run in the weeks close to an election, but they aren't required to provide detail about where they're getting their money or how they're spending much of it. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC 2: https://www.opensecrets.org/outside-spending/faq https://www.opensecrets.org/outside-spending/faq