(Photo by beast01/Getty Images)
During one week in early September, Sen. Susan Collins (R‑Maine), one of her joint fundraising committees and a super PAC backing her campaign each bought airtime on a Portland TV station during “Wheel of Fortune.”
For each 30-second spot, both Collins’ campaign and her JFC paid $2,200. The super PAC paid $10,000 – more than four times as much.
That price gap between candidates and outside spenders is standard. Federal law guarantees candidates steeply discounted “lowest unit charge” rates in the weeks before an election. While party committees and JFCs, historically excluded from the discount, are now poised to access it, super PACs continue to pay higher prices.
But campaign finance experts warn that a recent Supreme Court action could scramble that longstanding system even further – and potentially give those outside groups a backdoor discount.
“If you’re a wealthy person who wants to support your preferred candidates to the maximum extent possible, you now have another vehicle through which you can direct very large amounts of money,” said Erin Chlopak, a senior director of campaign finance at the Campaign Legal Center.
The court’s Sept. 4 order temporarily reinstated a Federal Communications Commission interpretation that allows political parties and joint fundraising committees to access the same low rates previously available only to the candidates themselves. Because a separate Federal Election Commission decision also allows JFCs to include super PACs, watchdogs say the ruling opens a path for outside groups to indirectly buy airtime at candidate prices, undermining the core purpose of federal ad protections.
“That [super PAC] could pay for campaign advertising, and because the candidate is a participant in the JFC, under the FCC’s interpretation, they would get the benefit of the lowest unit charge,” said Chlopak, whose organization has filed an amicus brief in the case urging the Supreme Court to leave the lower court’s ruling in place.
In that brief, the Campaign Legal Center described JFCs as “a perfect vehicle for super PACs seeking to finance campaign-style ads at LUC rates” and predicted the avenue “will almost certainly be exploited by super PACs and other soft money groups” if the FCC notice takes effect.
Run of rulings makes party-funded ads ‘appealing’
The current landscape stems from a rapid series of shifts in federal campaign finance rules.
First, an FEC advisory opinion in 2024 opened the door for super PACs to take part in JFCs alongside candidates – an unusual arrangement that lets nominally independent groups raise money in concert with campaigns. Then in March, the FCC issued a public notice interpreting federal law to allow JFCs and political parties to receive the same lowest-unit-charge ad rates historically reserved for candidates. And in June, the Supreme Court struck down longstanding limits on how much political parties may spend in coordination with federal candidates, effectively supercharging the value of party-aligned dollars – a move that Robert Kelner and colleagues at the Washington‑based law firm Covington & Burling wrote “can be expected to breathe new life into party power in campaign spending.”
Taken together, those changes dramatically expand the efficiency of coordinated party spending. “That decision, combined with the FCC decision saying, ‘And by the way, when parties coordinate with candidates, they get the benefit of this discounted advertising rate,’ means not only can you give more money to help the candidates, but that money will go even further because the costs of advertising are going to be lower,” Chlopak said.
The result, she said, is that party‑funded advertising has suddenly become “quite an appealing enterprise.”
Republican National Committee chairman Joe Gruters offered a blunt assessment of what the removal of the coordination cap could mean, telling the right-leaning Washington Reporter in June that access to the candidate rate means the party could ultimately pay “20 cents on the dollar” for those ads. “We’re going to be able to obliterate these guys, and then we’re going to be able to work directly with the candidates and make sure that we’re having maximum efficiency,” Gruters said.
The ruling also shifts donor incentives – “even if only slightly” – toward giving to parties instead of outside groups because parties can spend those contributions more efficiently, said Erika Franklin Fowler, a co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project, which tracks broadcast ads in federal elections.
“Some see this as a good thing because it places a bit more power in the hands of parties, which, in general, are more accountable to voters than are groups,” Fowler said.
Same time slot, different prices
Documents filed with the FCC by Portland ABC affiliate WMTW‑TV for the week of Sept. 1-7 list dozens of ads purchased by the Collins campaign, by Susan Collins for Maine (one of her JFCs) and by Pine Tree Results PAC, a pro‑Collins super PAC. All three bought air time during “Wheel of Fortune” during a week that included the start of the 60‑day window when candidates must receive the lowest unit charge. The station charged Collins’ campaign and her JFC $2,200 each for fixed placements during the episode airing Friday, Sept. 4 – the first day of that window. Pine Tree Results PAC paid $10,000 for each of two spots in a weekday rotation during the same week with no guaranteed airdate.
But Pine Tree Results isn’t just a super PAC supporting Collins’ reelection efforts. It is also a participant in Collins Victory Committee – a separate JFC that includes Collins’ campaign, her leadership PAC and the National Republican Senatorial Committee, FEC records show. Under the Supreme Court’s order, the JFC that lists Pine Tree Results PAC as a participant also could potentially access the same $2,200 lowest unit charge rate, rather than the $10,000 market rate the super PAC paid as a standalone buyer.
In other words, the price gap illustrated by Collins’ race may not last.
Federal law has long required broadcasters to offer candidates the “lowest unit charge” – the cheapest rate available for comparable commercial airtime – during the final weeks before an election. That discount is meant to ensure candidates can communicate with voters even as ad prices skyrocket.
Outside groups such as super PACs and party committees have never qualified for those rates and, historically, they have paid far more for the same airtime. A Fourth Circuit panel reaffirmed that interpretation in late August, striking down the FCC’s March notice and ruling that the statute is “unambiguous” that only candidates themselves are entitled to the discount.
The GOP’s Capitol Hill committees – the National Republican Congressional Committee and the NRSC – joined the case and appealed the ruling. They argued the panel had no jurisdiction to strike down the FCC’s public notice because it was not final, and instead remained under review. They asked the Supreme Court for an immediate stay to prevent broadcasters from rescinding the FCC-approved expansion of long‑established lowest‑unit‑charge rates during the election season. The Trump administration filed a brief supporting the groups, saying the Democratic candidates lacked standing. OpenSecrets reached out to both Republican Hill committees but did not receive responses from either.
The Supreme Court order on Sept. 4 sided with the Republican groups, reinstating the FCC’s interpretation that treats coordinated party and joint fundraising committee ads as “candidate use” – and therefore eligible for the lowest unit charge.
In a joint statement issued in response to the stay, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Executive Director Devan Barber and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Deputy Executive Director Will Van Nuys decried “a concerted effort by [President] Donald Trump and national Republicans to flood the midterm elections with money from billionaire donors.”
Ruling reshapes rules for 2026, raises long-term questions
While the order is not a final decision, it immediately reshapes the rules for the 2026 midterms.
The Republican Hill committees stand most likely to benefit in the short term because their war chests are larger than those of their Democratic counterparts, said Michael Beckel, the director of money-in-politics reform at the nonpartisan research group Issue One. According to FEC records through June 30, the NRCC held $92 million in cash on hand and the NRSC had $56 million. By comparison, the DCCC held $80 million and the DSCC had just under $40 million. Beckel predicted both parties will “also try to stockpile significant political cash for coordinated ads at low rates.”
Beckel and Fowler agreed that over the long term, the order will not disproportionately help either party.
“Historically, both parties have quickly adapted to changes in the campaign finance landscape,” Beckel said. “Bottom line: Voters will be seeing a lot more ads sponsored by party committees this fall, even as ads sponsored by super PACs and dark money groups continue. Ads by super PACs and dark money groups are not going away, even as parties spend more on coordinated ads with candidates.”
But the ruling raises longer-term concerns about the influence of megadonors, Beckel said. Currently, donors may not give more than $7,000 directly to a candidate’s campaign, if they max out to both the primary and general election limits of $3,500. But with individuals allowed to give each party committee up to $44,300 per year and limits on coordinated spending by parties and candidates gone – and those party committees able to stretch those dollars further through lower ad rates – the math changes dramatically.
“Megadonors can now give hundreds of thousands of dollars to the party for coordinated expenditures with that same candidate,” Beckel said. “If we see mega-joint fundraising committees emerge for House and Senate candidates similar to the mega-joint fundraising committees that frequently boost presidential candidates, wealthy megadonors may be able to give more than $1 million through the parties to benefit a specific candidate. Such large contributions increase the risk of corruption and the appearance of corruption.”
However, granting the parties access to the lowest unit charge, Fowler countered, ultimately could result in more transparency if the ads they air contain explicit party labels that “often help viewers better understand the sponsors.”
“We think of the purchasing power more in terms of the structural benefit afforded to candidates than we do about current partisan fundraising advantages, which can change from cycle to cycle,” she continued.
