The 2010 Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. FEC reshaped U.S. campaign finance by allowing corporations, unions, and nonprofit organizations to spend unlimited amounts on elections through independent expenditures. This led to the rise of Super Political Action Committees (Super PACs), which have since become a dominant force in campaign spending, funding advertisements, events, and other candidate support efforts. While Super PACs are widely believed to influence election dynamics, there remains uncertainty about their effectiveness in helping candidates win. This study examines the impact of Super PAC spending in U.S. House, U.S. Senate, and Presidential general elections since 2012. Using regression analysis, it evaluates whether increased Super PAC expenditures correlate with a higher likelihood of victory, influence the margin of victory or loss, and how election competitiveness affects Super PAC spending. The analysis also considers key variables such as incumbency, total candidate committee money raised, and candidate experience, shedding light on the role of Super PACs in shaping electoral outcomes and contributing to ongoing discussions on the influence of money in modern political campaigns.