What Happened to Campaign Finance Reform?

The history of campaign finance reform in the United States is largely a story of legislative attempts to curb the influence of money in politics, often met with judicial challenges based on First Amendment free speech protections. Early efforts, such as the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) of 1971, established limits on contributions and required disclosure of campaign spending. A significant legislative milestone was the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002, commonly known as McCain-Feingold. This act aimed to reduce the role of 'soft money'—unregulated contributions to political parties—and restricted issue advocacy ads close to elections. The Supreme Court largely upheld McCain-Feingold in McConnell v. FEC (2003), affirming Congress's interest in preventing corruption and the appearance of corruption.

However, the landscape dramatically shifted with the Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. This landmark ruling held that corporations and unions have the same First Amendment free speech rights as individuals, and therefore, the government cannot restrict their independent political expenditures in candidate elections. The Court reasoned that such spending did not lead to quid pro quo corruption. This decision paved the way for the rise of Super PACs and other 'dark money' groups, which can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections, often without disclosing their donors.

The consequences of Citizens United have been profound, leading to a significant increase in undisclosed spending in elections. For instance, groups concealing their donors poured over $1.9 billion into the 2024 federal election cycle, nearly double the $1 billion spent in 2020. This trend has continued into the 2026 midterm cycle, with a network of connected nonprofits already contributing over $33.1 million to federal Super PACs by August 2026, exceeding previous cycles. Public opinion polls in 2025 and 2026 consistently show that a majority of Americans believe large-scale political spending undermines democracy and creates the appearance of corruption, with many rejecting the idea that unlimited spending is equivalent to free speech.

As of August 18, 2026, the debate over campaign finance reform remains highly active. A critical development occurred on June 30, 2026, when the Supreme Court, in National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission (NRSC v. FEC), struck down federal limits on the amount of money political parties can spend in coordination with candidates. This 6-3 ruling overturned a 25-year-old precedent and is expected to further increase the influence of large contributions by allowing parties to act as conduits for significant funds to benefit individual candidates.

In response to these ongoing challenges, several legislative proposals have emerged in 2026. The DISCLOSE Act of 2026 has been reintroduced by numerous Democratic members of Congress, aiming to restore transparency by requiring Super PACs, 501(c)(4) 'dark money' groups, and other organizations spending over $10,000 in elections to promptly disclose donors. This updated bill also seeks to capture payments to social media influencers as political spending. Additionally, the Campaign Finance Transparency Act and the Preventing Foreign Interference in American Elections Act were introduced in May 2026 by House Administration Chairman Bryan Steil, seeking to increase accountability in online donations, remove de minimis reporting thresholds, and prohibit contributions via gift cards, while also strengthening prohibitions against foreign nationals in election-related activities. Congressman Ritchie Torres also introduced the Campaign Funds Integrity Act of 2026 to prohibit the use of campaign funds in prediction markets. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) continues its role in enforcing existing laws, with 2024 seeing developments in advisory opinions, rulemaking (including modernizing regulations for electronic communications and social media), and enforcement actions. Despite these efforts, the influence of money in politics, particularly 'dark money,' remains a central and growing concern for the integrity of American elections.