Anatomy of a Major Corrupt Campaign Finance Practice
The Supreme Court found in Buckley v. Valeo (1976) that campaign spending by outside interests could not be limited. But it also agreed that the spending had to be independent of a candidate, party, or their agents.
If the spending was coordinated, the expenditure would become a contribution and be subject to contribution limits.
The Supreme Court has found that the spending must be done “totally independently,” Buckley v. Valeo (1976); “not pursuant to any general or particular understanding with a candidate,” Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. FEC (1996) (“Colorado I”); “without any candidate’s approval (or wink or nod),” and be “truly independent,” FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee (2001) (“Colorado II”).
These Court opinions reinforced that spending by outside interests had to be genuinely independent to be unlimited. That standard no longer exists in practice.
Today, we have a Supreme Court majority that has repeatedly gutted the nation’s anti-corruption campaign finance laws and an FEC that has failed to enforce even the remaining rules.
Candidates, party committees, Super PACs and nonprofit groups have made a farce of the “independent” spending requirement. It is routinely ignored. Super PACs are generally run by a candidate’s former political advisers, former senior aides or other close political allies – allowing the candidate to control them, either directly or indirectly.
While the appearance of legal separation is maintained, there is functional coordination that results in the candidate contribution limits being bypassed and eviscerated.
Does anyone really think the Super PACs and dark money, nonprofit groups closely “affiliated” with the four Democratic and Republican congressional party committees really comply with the Supreme Court requirements of “totally” and “truly” independent expenditures?
In fact, making huge contributions to Super PACs and dark money, nonprofit groups closely “affiliated” with the House and Senate party campaign committees is probably the best way to obtain influence in the House and Senate.
An example of how much influence one of these Super PACs can have in elections is seen by the Super PAC “affiliated” with the Senate Republican campaign committee, the NRSC, which recently unveiled a campaign plan to buy more than $340 million in ads in eight targeted Senate races.
These expenditures include $79 million in Ohio, $71 million in North Carolina, $45 million in Michigan, $44 million in Georgia and $42 million in Maine. This does not include the campaign spending being made by the nonprofit group “affiliated” with the NRSC.
These expenditures are designed to elect specific candidates by groups operating in close alignment with those candidates and their Senate party campaign committees, precisely the kind of spending the Court said for years could not be unlimited.
On top of the $342 million campaign, Trump’s affiliated Super PACs are expected to make major expenditures in the targeted Senate races and in other congressional elections. Trump’s closely affiliated MAGA Super PAC alone started 2026 with a war chest of $304 million.
While the Super PAC and nonprofit, closely affiliated with the Senate Democratic party campaign committee, and the DSCC will also engage in substantial spending in these Senate races, their expenditures are expected to be dwarfed by the Republican spending.
The money for the Super PACs and nonprofits “affiliated” with the four congressional party campaign committees invariably comes in very large contributions from influence-seeking donors with tax, regulatory or other business interests pending before Congress and the administration. (Other Super PACs will also be spending substantial sums in these contested Senate races.)
Another instrument for eviscerating the candidate contribution limits is the single-candidate Super PAC.
According to Open Secrets, in the 2024 elections, 291 single-candidate Super PACs raised $1.7 billion and spent $1.2 billion. These Super PACs are generally controlled by individuals closely associated with the candidate and, in essence, are not making “independent expenditures.”
These PACs have one overriding purpose: to allow donors to give unlimited, often huge, contributions to support a single candidate. This eviscerates the candidate contribution limit ($3,500 per election). A Super PAC devoted to one candidate, run by that candidate’s close allies and funded with unlimited contributions from influence-seeking donors is anything but independent.
It’s a scam, pure and simple.
It is also a formula for political money corruption.
Democracy 21 developed a model bill years ago to shut down individual-candidate Super PACs and to make real the requirement for “independent” spending.
In addition to dealing with this core problem in order to protect the integrity of candidate contribution limits, sweeping reforms are essential that include an alternative small donor financing system, effective disclosure of dark money contributions and a functioning enforcement body.
Until comprehensive campaign finance reforms are enacted, the American people will pay the enormous price of political money corruption in Washington.
___________
Fred’s Weekly Note appears on Thursdays in Wertheimer’s Political Report, a Democracy 21 newsletter. Read this week’s newsletter, and other recent editions, here. And subscribe for free here and receive your copy each week via email.
