On Monday, the Supreme Court announced it will consider arguments to lift restrictions on how much money political parties may spend in coordination with candidates for federal office, a move that could drive Democrats and Republicans to ask the public for even more campaign donations.
Current law allows federal and state party committees to spend money on elections in coordination with candidates, but there are spending limits based on the type of office sought and voting-age population in the state. (In most states, coordination in House races is capped at $63,600. Senate limits range from $127,200 in low-population states like Delaware to $3,946,100 in California.)
This case, National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, seeks to lift those caps. Proponents argue the limits impinge on First Amendment rights by limiting the parties’ ability to advocate for their candidates. Those defending the law say the issue was already settled by the Supreme Court and would simply create a way for donors to direct money to candidates many times above the current individual contribution limits.
But there are questions about both arguments.
This case only concerns campaign spending — not fundraising. Unless the court expands the issues at the center of the debate, the parties would not be able to raise additional money from wealthy donors who already max out their donations to political parties’ primary accounts (currently capped at $44,300, indexed for inflation). In other words, people who already max out their donations to the parties will not be able to give any more, beyond the modest inflation-adjusted increase.
That said, the parties will have an opportunity to raise more from donors who do not give the maximum amount — and reclaim some control over the spending. Once a donor hits the cap on contributions to a candidate, they can then give money to a party committee knowing that there are no restrictions on the party spending the money in close cooperation with a candidate, unlike donations to super PACs, which in theory are supposed to spend without coordinating with candidates’ campaigns.
At OpenSecrets, we question whether a ruling that lifts spending caps for parties would truly benefit transparency. Yes, it’s likely parties would spend more money that must be disclosed, but it remains to be seen whether and how much it might impact money funneling through super PACs, which are the main vehicle for dark money entering the system. While super PACs are supposed to remain independent and spend without coordination, the barriers around coordination have eroded in recent elections (see Campaign Legal Center’s study of this issue in 2023).
Even with this ruling, super PACs will likely remain relevant, as they’ve become the established route for megadonors who want to influence elections (and for those trying to remain anonymous). Ultimately, we will need to wait and see just how much dark money comes back into the light and in all cases, any change to the campaign finance system will require vigilance in order to provide voters with the information they need to make sound decisions.
At OpenSecrets, we remain committed to doing our part in service of governmental integrity, which is to make that money transparent and to enable the public to hold politicians accountable.
