Republicans push the limits to revamp campaign finance operations
washingtonexaminer.com -- Saturday, August 16, 2025, 8:29:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Categories: Fundraising & Political Donations, Democratic Party Responses, Presidential Campaigns
The increased use of so-called joint fundraising committees to score cheaper ads is a relatively new trend that GOP operatives and candidates, particularly for the Senate, have leaned into the past year to save millions of dollars and mitigate what has historically been a Democratic fundraising advantage.
"We think the use of JFCs ... is a strategic option for us but is something everyone should do," a senior GOP operative said. "If you don't, you're kind of running a campaign of the past."
Joint fundraising committees allow candidates another avenue to raise and spend money from the same donors but separate from their principal campaign accounts, skirting traditional contribution limits for individual campaigns. The funds are shared between the candidate and other committees, such as the Senate GOP's campaign arm.
Their existence is not a new phenomenon. But what is new is the way they're being used, mostly by Senate GOP candidates, to stretch advertising dollars by using the money to purchase TV ads at a lower rate only offered to candidates. The move has prompted concerns from campaign finance ethics advocates, despite the Federal Election Commission effectively allowing the practice.
"Only somewhat recently we've been seeing them used in these creative ways that actually kind of undermine the larger scheme of campaign finance regulations, which exist, of course, to protect voters' interests and transparency, and curb potential corruption," said Saurav Ghosh, director of campaign finance reform at the Campaign Legal Center.
Senate Republican candidates began testing the strategy last year in states like Montana and Michigan after Republican and Democratic FEC regulators deadlocked on whether the ad spending is permitted, effectively greenlighting their use in a cycle where the GOP clawed back the majority. The continued lack of FEC action has since emboldened Senate Republicans to pump millions of dollars from joint committees into cheaper ads.
Joanna Rodriguez, a spokesperson for the Senate GOP's campaign arm known as the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), described JFCs as "the most modern, efficient way for candidates to maximize the potential of hard-dollar donations."
Republicans' workaround to avoid potential violations, which some consider a "loophole," is to include a fundraising request in what otherwise looks like a traditional campaign ad. The request often comes in the form of a QR code that's briefly flashed on screen.
"It's easy to raise a large amount ... from donors in one shot, and you could use the money for multiple things," a former NRSC official told the Washington Examiner. "They change the end [of the ad] to be a fundraiser component, and that enables them to do what would otherwise be similar to a campaign ad... and allow the committee to buy at a candidate rate."
Super PACs also play a large role in candidates' broader campaign apparatus. But unlike joint committees, they can't coordinate with candidates or campaigns and thus face higher TV ad rates.
The joint fundraising tactic, coupled with other efforts by Republicans, has the potential to further transform the ways political parties and candidates raise money, that have the GOP looking to capitalize on.
ActBlue, the Democratic Party's online fundraising platform, is the subject of state and federal investigations by Republicans over assertions, including from President Donald Trump, that it's funneling illegal contributions to progressive candidates and causes.
And in a case before the Supreme Court, the NRSC is seeking to overturn a 2001 FEC ruling limiting coordinated spending between political parties and candidates. A decision by the conservative-leaning high court in favor of the NRSC "would essentially codify our approach" on joint fundraising, the senior GOP operative said.
In some instances, Republicans have also used the campaign-finance strategy to try and obscure lackluster fundraising quarters.
Last month, the campaign for Michigan GOP Senate hopeful Mike Rogers initially released misleading figures claiming a second-quarter haul of $1.5 million without disclosing that roughly half came from joint fundraising. The omission made it appear as though Rogers' fundraising figures were stronger than they actually were, until the FEC filing hours later revealed he trailed all of his challengers. His joint fundraising committee shares the funds with four other entities, including the NRSC and Rogers' campaign.
"It's an artful way to paper over a less than a sub-optimal quarter," said an operative for a former Republican Senate candidate. "If you've had a good quarter, you wouldn't have a problem delineating for people what you raised where and be more transparent about it."
By comparison, other GOP candidates clearly delineated between direct campaign figures and affiliated groups like joint fundraising committees.
Democrats also use joint fundraising but to a far lesser degree, a tendency that GOP operatives blame on alleged malpractices with ActBlue. Democrats say that trend is likely to change, particularly if it means keeping a level playing field with Republicans using fundraising methods deemed permissible by the courts and regulators.
HOW A SUPREME COURT CASE ON CAMPAIGN FINANCE COULD CHANGE ELECTIONS
Democrat Roy Cooper, the former North Carolina governor running to replace retiring Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC), raised $900,000 through joint fundraising in his first 24 hours, buoying the $2.6 million raised directly by the campaign.
"If it proves to be effective and the regulators don't seem to be doing anything about it, I think it's going to become popular on both sides of the aisle," said Ghosh of the Campaign Legal Center. "Whoever the first mover is -- others are going to see that it's working, and I think follow suit."
Marisa Schultz contributed to this report.
Sign Our PetitionThe recent developments in joint fundraising committees (JFCs) within Republican campaign finance strategies underscore an evolving landscape that raises critical questions about the integrity of electoral processes and the health of democracy itself. As Republican candidates increasingly leverage these committees to circumvent traditional campaign finance regulations, it is imperative to scrutinize the implications of such maneuvers, not only for the current political environment but also in the context of historical struggles for campaign finance reform and the ongoing quest for equitable representation in American politics.
Historically, the United States has grappled with the influence of money in politics, a struggle that intensified following the Supreme Court's Citizens United v. FEC decision in 2010, which effectively removed limits on independent expenditures by corporations and unions. This ruling catalyzed the rise of Super PACs, allowing vast sums of money to flood into political campaigns—often from undisclosed sources. The introduction and evolution of JFCs can be seen as an extension of this trend, exploiting loopholes in existing regulations to further entrench the financial advantages that wealthier candidates and parties have over their opponents. The recent actions by Senate Republicans to utilize JFCs for cheaper advertising rates are emblematic of a systemic issue: the prioritization of fundraising prowess over genuine democratic engagement.
The strategic use of JFCs not only raises ethical concerns but also highlights the underlying inequities in campaign financing. By allowing candidates to pool resources and amplify their reach through coordinated advertising efforts, the practice can disproportionately benefit those already enjoying a financial advantage. This development is particularly concerning given the historical context of campaign finance reform efforts aimed at leveling the playing field. The bipartisan push for reforms like the McCain-Feingold Act sought to curtail the overwhelming influence of money in politics, but ongoing legislative inaction and regulatory loopholes have allowed such exploitation to persist. Advocates for campaign finance reform must continue to critically analyze and challenge these emerging tactics, as they threaten to undermine the very essence of democratic representation.
Furthermore, the normalization of JFCs as a campaign tool reflects broader societal issues regarding power dynamics and representation in politics. The ability to fundraise effectively often correlates with social and economic privilege, which inherently disadvantages candidates from marginalized communities. The GOP's reliance on these joint fundraising strategies serves to reinforce existing disparities, effectively sidelining voices that are critical for a truly representative democracy. The historical exclusion of various groups from political processes has long been a source of contention; thus, it is essential to consider how modern campaign finance practices perpetuate these inequities.
In light of these developments, it is critical for advocates of campaign finance reform to mobilize and demand stricter regulations that enhance transparency and accountability. The arguments presented by figures like Saurav Ghosh from the Campaign Legal Center resonate strongly in this context. The assertion that JFCs, in their current form, undermine the intent of campaign finance regulations highlights the need for systemic changes that address not only the mechanics of fundraising but also the broader socio-political implications of money in politics. As we approach future electoral cycles, it becomes increasingly vital to engage in conversations about the integrity of our democratic institutions and the importance of equitable access to political representation.
Ultimately, the Republican Party's current tactics with joint fundraising committees serve as a case study in the intersection of money, politics, and ethical governance. As these practices continue to unfold, they invite a critical examination of how political strategies evolve in response to regulatory environments and societal values. For those invested in the health of American democracy, the ongoing struggle for equitable campaign finance presents an opportunity to advocate for a system that prioritizes the voices of all citizens, rather than a select few with the means to dominate the political landscape. In this light, it is essential to remain vigilant, informed, and engaged in the pursuit of a more just and representative electoral process.
The recent trend among Republican candidates to exploit joint fundraising committees (JFCs) represents a significant shift in campaign finance strategies that has implications for the integrity of our electoral process. Historically, campaign finance regulations emerged in the wake of scandals that exposed the corrupting influence of money in politics, such as the Watergate scandal in the 1970s. These regulations were intended to ensure transparency and limit the potential for corruption, aiming to foster a more democratic process. However, the evolution of JFCs, particularly their novel use by Senate GOP candidates, raises urgent questions about the effectiveness of current campaign finance laws and the ethical considerations surrounding them.
The mechanics of JFCs allow candidates to pool resources from the same donors, effectively circumventing traditional contribution limits intended to curb the influence of money on politics. This practice not only undermines the spirit of campaign finance laws but also risks creating a system where the wealthiest individuals wield disproportionate influence over elected officials and policy decisions. As noted by campaign finance reform advocates, the creative application of JFCs to enhance fundraising efficiency raises alarms about transparency and accountability – two pillars of a functioning democracy. The Federal Election Commission's inaction on this matter only emboldens the Republican Party's aggressive fundraising strategies, effectively legalizing a form of financial manipulation that could skew electoral outcomes in their favor.
As citizens concerned about the integrity of our democracy, we must recognize the urgency of addressing these developments. One avenue for action is to advocate for comprehensive campaign finance reform at both state and federal levels. This includes supporting measures that would close loopholes like those exploited by JFCs and strengthen transparency requirements for all political donations. By mobilizing grassroots efforts and engaging in dialogues with lawmakers, we can push for legislation that limits the influence of money in politics, such as the Democracy For All Amendment, which seeks to overturn the Citizens United decision that allowed for unlimited corporate spending in elections.
Moreover, educating ourselves and others about the implications of these practices is essential. As these strategies become more mainstream, the average voter must understand how they impact electoral dynamics and governance. This includes discussing the importance of independent oversight of campaign finances and the role of organizations dedicated to monitoring and reforming political funding. By fostering a well-informed citizenry, we can empower voters to hold their representatives accountable and push back against the encroachment of special interests in our political system.
Finally, we can utilize social media and community organizing to raise awareness about the implications of JFCs and campaign finance practices that prioritize big donors over everyday people. Engaging in local forums, town halls, and public discussions can illuminate the risks posed by unchecked campaign finance practices and galvanize collective action toward reform. By framing these issues as not merely partisan debates but fundamental questions about the health of our democracy, we can build a coalition of concerned citizens across the political spectrum advocating for a more equitable and transparent electoral process. Ultimately, the fight against the undue influence of money in politics is not just a political battle; it is a moral imperative that calls for our active participation and unwavering commitment to democratic principles.
In light of the recent trends in campaign finance outlined in the article, there are several proactive steps individuals can take to address the growing influence of money in politics and advocate for a more equitable electoral process. Here’s a detailed list of actions you can undertake:
### Personal Actions You Can Take
1. **Educate Yourself and Others** - Stay informed about the implications of campaign finance laws and practices. Share insights with friends and family to foster discussions about the importance of campaign finance reform.
2. **Support Campaign Finance Reform Organizations** - Contribute to or volunteer with organizations that focus on campaign finance reform, such as the Campaign Legal Center or Common Cause. These organizations work tirelessly to advocate for transparency and accountability in political funding.
3. **Engage with Your Local Community** - Organize or participate in local forums, town halls, or discussions emphasizing the need for campaign finance reforms. Raise awareness about how these issues impact local and national elections.
### Specific Actions to Take
1. **Sign Petitions** - Look for online petitions advocating for campaign finance reform. Websites like Change.org or MoveOn.org often have active campaigns. For instance, you can sign petitions urging Congress to pass laws that close loopholes in campaign finance regulations.
2. **Write to Elected Officials** - Reach out to your representatives to express your concerns about the current state of campaign finance. Here’s a sample list of who to contact:
- **U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren** - Email: https://www.warren.senate.gov/contact (Use the contact form) - Mailing Address: 2400 JFK Federal Building, 15 New Sudbury St., Boston, MA 02203 - **U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders** - Email: https://www.sanders.senate.gov/contact - Mailing Address: 1 Burlington Mall, Suite 200, Burlington, VT 05401
When writing, consider saying something like: “Dear Senator [Name], I am writing to express my concern regarding the recent developments in campaign finance, particularly the increased use of joint fundraising committees that undermine transparency and accountability in our electoral process. I urge you to advocate for stronger campaign finance regulations to ensure fair elections and protect the interests of voters. Thank you for your attention to this critical issue.”
3. **Participate in Advocacy Campaigns** - Join advocacy groups that organize letter-writing campaigns or phone banks to influence legislation. For example, organizations like Public Citizen often run campaigns that directly engage citizens in lobbying efforts.
4. **Attend Rallies and Demonstrations** - Participate in local or national rallies advocating for campaign finance reform. These events often provide an opportunity to connect with like-minded individuals and amplify the call for change.
5. **Use Social Media for Advocacy** - Leverage your social media platforms to raise awareness about campaign finance issues. Share articles, write posts, and encourage your network to get involved in advocacy efforts.
6. **Support Candidates Committed to Reform** - Research and support candidates who prioritize campaign finance reform in their platforms. Volunteer for their campaigns, donate, or help spread the word about their commitment to transparency.
### Conclusion
Engaging in these actions can help foster a political environment that prioritizes voter interests over the influence of money. By educating yourself and others, advocating for reform, and actively participating in the democratic process, you can contribute to a more transparent and accountable electoral system.