By John Kruzel
WASHINGTON, Sept 24 (Reuters) – Since the US Supreme Court in June sided with Republicans and struck down federal caps on spending by political parties in coordination with candidates, Republican committees have blown past the former limits as President Donald Trump’s party fights to retain control of Congress in November’s midterm elections.
The Republican committees supporting the party’s candidates in Senate and House of Representatives races have exceeded the former national caps by more than $48 million, according to Federal Election Commission spending disclosures for July and August. Their Democratic counterparts also eclipsed the former limits, but by much less — just under $4 million.
Political analysts said Republican committees have sought to use the newly unfettered coordinated spending to help level the playing field in key races in which individual Democratic candidates had outraised their Republican opponents. Another surge in spending by both parties is expected in the coming weeks in the run-up to the November 3 elections.
‘BIGGER BANG FOR THEIR BUCK’
“The political parties anticipated that the court was likely to strike down the limits on coordinated party spending and had been planning in advance for that outcome. That’s particularly true on the Republican side,” said New York University School of Law professor Richard Pildes, an expert in campaign finance.
“Given that, it’s not surprising that the Republican Party has quickly shifted the structure of its spending. The parties get a much bigger bang for their buck on broadcast ads when they engage in coordinated spending with their candidates, rather than independent spending,” Pildes added.
A 1971 law called the Federal Election Campaign Act had imposed the restrictions on coordinated spending, with the aim of preventing corruption.
The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 ruling on June 30 powered by its conservative majority, rejected the restrictions, agreeing with challengers including Trump’s Vice President JD Vance that the limits violated the US Constitution’s First Amendment protections against government abridgment of freedom of speech.
The overall volume of coordinated spending by Republican committees with candidates in July and August was more than quadruple what they spent during the same months of the last midterm elections in 2022.
The National Republican Senatorial Committee, or NRSC, was one of the challengers in the case decided by the Supreme Court. It supports Republican Senate candidates, while the National Republican Congressional Committee, or NRCC, supports the party’s House candidates. Both can accept funding from the Republican National Committee.
These three national Republican committees ended August with about $233 million in cash. Their Democratic counterparts held roughly $130 million but also carried nearly $18 million in debt, according to Federal Election Commission filings.
The Federal Election Campaign Act imposes contribution limits and other restrictions on campaign spending. Under it, spending by a political party to advocate for or against a candidate that is not coordinated with a candidate’s campaign is considered an “independent expenditure” — and was not subject to a cap.
Spending coordinated between a party and a campaign was restricted. Before the Supreme Court’s ruling, the 2026 limits had ranged from $130,600 to about $4.1 million for Senate candidates and from $65,300 to $130,600 for House candidates, depending on a state’s population.
SPENDING SPREE
In the two months after the court’s ruling, the NRSC and NRCC poured a total of nearly $56 million of coordinated spending into Senate and House races across the country. Their Democratic counterparts spent a total of around $6 million during this period in coordinated spending.
The NRSC made coordinated expenditures in July and August to back Republicans in nine Senate races, exceeding the former national spending caps in all of them, by a combined $42 million.
About $10 million of that excess was in Ohio, where the committee spent about $11 million overall to support incumbent Republican Senator Jon Husted, who is facing Democratic former Senator Sherrod Brown.
In that race, expenditures by the NRSC on Husted’s behalf more than doubled the $4.9 million that his campaign committees had spent in the first 18 months of the race, according to Federal Election Commission filings.
The NRSC exceeded the former cap by another almost $7 million in North Carolina, where it spent about $8 million to support Republican candidate Michael Whatley, who is running against Democratic former Governor Roy Cooper. Both Husted and Whatley were outraised by their Democratic opponents, according to the most recently available data.
A further upswing in coordinated spending is expected this month when committees, and not just candidates, become eligible for discounted TV and radio advertising rates under a federal policy changed by the Trump administration.
The Supreme Court on September 4 revived the eligibility of party committees under that policy, known as the Federal Communications Commission’s “lowest unit charge,” while a legal challenge plays out.
Democratic candidates including incumbent Senator Jon Ossoff of Georgia sued in June to try to block the lowest unit charge policy from applying to party committees.
The NRSC said in a June memo that “lowest unit charge” rates for coordinated ads historically have been 3 to 13 times cheaper than the rates paid by outside political groups.
One Republican official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Reuters that the combination of the court striking down coordinated-spending caps and the committees’ eligibility for cheaper airtime means, “Our dollars can go further than they could before.”
The conservative-majority Supreme Court in several rulings since 2010 has chipped away at campaign finance laws. These include rulings striking down federal limits on independent political expenditures by corporations and unions and the overall amount an individual can spend on federal political contributions as First Amendment violations.
(Reporting by John Kruzel; Additional reporting by Jason Lange; Editing by Will Dunham)
Comments