OpenSecrets

07/02/2025 | Press release | Archived content

With election spending rules under review, our mission stays firm

The Supreme Court is going to consider a campaign finance case. (Photo by YayaErnst/Getty Images)

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.

Republish this article

We encourage you to republish our content. Please review our republication policy for guidelines.

Get Republish Code

Republish this article

×

We encourage you to republish this article online and in print. It's free under a Creative Commons license and in accordance with our republication policy.

OpenSecrets Republication Policy

OpenSecrets is dedicated to helping Americans use data on money in politics to create a more vibrant, representative and responsive democracy. That is why we allow republication of our news and analysis in print or online, for free, under the terms of our Creative Commons license and our republication policy.

  • You may not edit our content, except for time, location and editorial style. You may shorten articles for space considerations.
  • You must provide a byline for the author of the content, matching the byline appearing on OpenSecrets.org.
  • You must maintain all original hyperlinks.
  • You must include a line at the top or bottom of each article that reads "This story was originally published by OpenSecrets" and link to the original version of the story on opensecrets.org.
  • Online articles must use our tracking pixel, which is included in the republishing tool. This allows us to track views of our content on your platform.
  • We request you send PDFs of any content that appears in print to [email protected].
  • Infographics created by OpenSecrets may be included in your republication, but photographs or visual content credited to other organizations may not be used without gaining permission from the provider (such as Getty Images).
  • We request that you tag OpenSecrets when sharing our content in your social channels.
  • You may not sell or otherwise commercialize our content without gaining permission, which you can request by emailing [email protected]. You may run ads on pages featuring OpenSecrets content.
  • Do not syndicate our content through platforms such as Apple News or SmartNews.
  • You may not scrape or otherwise systematically take news content from OpenSecrets.org to populate your site.

If you have any additional questions, email [email protected].

Embed

With election spending rules under review, our mission stays firm

By OpenSecrets Staff July 2, 2025
Supreme CourtThe Supreme Court is going to consider a campaign finance case. (Photo by YayaErnst/Getty Images)

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.

This article was originally published by OpenSecrets, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that tracks money in politics. View the original article.

Copy Code
Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit OpenSecrets.
For permission to reprint for commercial uses, such as textbooks, contact OpenSecrets: [email protected]

Support Accountability Journalism

At OpenSecrets.org we offer in-depth, money-in-politics stories in the public interest. Whether you’re reading about 2022 midterm fundraising, conflicts of interest or “dark money” influence, we produce this content with a small, but dedicated team. Every donation we receive from users like you goes directly into promoting high-quality data analysis and investigative journalism that you can trust.

OpenSecrets is a 501(c)(3) non-profit.

Your donation is tax-exempt.

OpenSecrets published this content on July 02, 2025, and is solely responsible for the information contained herein. Distributed via Public Technologies (PUBT), unedited and unaltered, on April 27, 2026 at 14:42 UTC. If you believe the information included in the content is inaccurate or outdated and requires editing or removal, please contact us at [email protected]