Republicans have stockpiled well over $100 million more than Democrats in their party committees heading into the midterms, building a cash advantage in an otherwise tough election year.
Read more White House ballroom rises aboveground as legal, funding disputes cloud project
A looming Supreme Court decision could supercharge that fundraising gap.
GOP operatives are hopeful that the court’s conservative majority will soon strike down key restrictions on party committees’ coordination with candidates, allowing those committees to get far cheaper advertising rates and make their money go further. The Democratic National Committee’s fundraising woes could become more consequential as a result.
“If the court overturns the coordination rules, you essentially turn the national committees into additional bank accounts for the campaigns,” said Jesse Ferguson, a longtime Democratic operative. “And at this point, the Republican bank account is way bigger.”
That advantage would then filter down to the candidates.
“Every Republican campaign essentially inherits a much bigger trust fund than any of the Democrats inherit,” Ferguson said.
Democratic candidates continue to outraise their GOP opponents in many races, and party officials predict Republicans’ war chest will not be enough to overcome President Donald Trump‘s low poll numbers, the unpopular war with Iran and concerns about high prices.
But the anticipated ruling comes at a rough time for Democrats. The Democratic National Committee has been mired in infighting over the party’s 2024 loss, and some top donors have cut their giving.
The trio of top Republican committees — the Republican National Committee, the National Republican Congressional Committee and the National Republican Senatorial Committee — ended March with $238 million in the bank and no debt. The trio of similar Democratic committees — the DNC, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee — ended the month with $120 million in the bank and $18 million in debt.
The DNC is responsible for all the debt and much of the gap, with just $14 million in the bank.
“The RNC vs. DNC money is terrifying,” said a Democratic operative, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to talk frankly about the party’s internal fundraising issues.
At the heart of the issue is the rate that groups pay to air television and radio ads during hotly contested elections. By law, campaigns are entitled to a lower rate than outside groups such as super PACs and committees. Outside groups have at times paid more than 10 times what campaigns pay to run ads in expensive markets.
That disparity has benefited Democrats in high-profile races in which their candidates rake in small dollar donations and outraise Republican opponents. GOP committees can back up their candidates with ads — but their money does not go as far as the candidates’ would.
Ryan Dollar, the general counsel at Republicans’ House campaign arm — which is funding the case and leading the legal efforts — compared the case to the Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling in Citizens United that allowed companies and unions to spend on elections with few restrictions.
“It’s … on par with Citizens United for its importance to the First Amendment,” Dollar said. “This would be a massive step in centralizing power back with the parties.”
Democrats have been planning since last year for an adverse ruling. While committees often set up separate operations during election years to take advantage of different campaign finance laws, the House Democrats’ campaign arm has yet to do that, forgoing the extra staffing because the court could soon allow them to coordinate directly from their primary committee.
Read more Officially, Marco Rubio is still banned from China. So how is he in Beijing?
“[We] have been preparing all cycle if the Supreme Court decides to dilute the voice of voters and grassroots donors at the behest of Republicans,” said Will Van Nuys, the committee’s deputy executive director. “The DCCC is prepared to do what is necessary to win the majority in 2026.”
Bernadette Breslin, a spokesperson for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said striking down limits on their coordination with campaigns “would be a decisive win for political speech.”
While many Democratic operatives believe the court will rule for Republicans — given its partisan lean — some argue it is premature to assume committees and outside groups receive the same ad rates as campaigns.
But RNC officials and other Republicans are already planning for the possible advantage, anticipating they will soon have considerably more leeway with their war chest and can get more aggressive on their ad spending.
“This could be a boost for us,” said one RNC official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to talk openly about their plans before the court rules.
Democrats are attempting to tamp down fears that the ruling could upend one of their clear advantages. Maeve Coyle, a spokesperson for the Senate Democrats’ campaign arm, said the party is prepared to adapt and has advantages including a favorable political environment and an edge with small donors.
“No matter how much money they pour into these races” Republicans will not be able to run away from their records in office, said Rosemary Boeglin, a DNC spokesperson.
The Supreme Court has been loosening restrictions on political spending for years, and some advocates for tighter campaign finance restrictions view the case as another likely blow.
“If parties can spend their money in coordination with candidates, there is a real risk that this decision will further embolden megadonors, further empower wealthy special interests,” said Michael Beckel, the director of money in politics reform at the nonprofit Issue One.
Party committees have contribution limits — unlike super PACs — but can accept bigger donations than candidates.
Others see the potential change as a welcome reform. Ray La Raja, a political science professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst who gave expert testimony in favor of Republicans in the case, argued that political parties deserve more power in a landscape increasingly dominated by less transparent groups without contribution limits.
“My argument all along is that we’ve weakened the party institutions so much that we’re giving power to interest groups,” he said.
Read more Lile, Nationals roar back to hold off Reds in 10 innings
Clara Ence Morse contributed to this report.
–
