Opinion: Curb massive election campaign funding

The just-concluded midterm elections were the most expensive in U.S. history. According to spending monitor OpenSecrets, estimated expenditures totaled $11.93 billion. Democrats were estimated to have spent $5.52 billion, Republicans $5.12 billion and independents $1.3 billion. The 2022 midterms saw total expenditures of $8.94 billion, meaning spending this year increased by about one-third.

This year's massive expenditure includes contributions from many of the same people who turned out to vote because they cannot afford the high costs of groceries and gas. Should there be a cap on how much candidates can spend on their election campaigns? Should elections be won by candidates who can spend the most money but are weak at implementing their proposed policies if elected?

Ordinary Americans are struggling with the cost of groceries, gasoline, housing and health care. Yet enormous sums of money are being poured into political campaigns, often by wealthy individuals, corporations, political action committees (PACs) and other organizations. This prompts a fundamental democratic question that touches on the core of political equality: Should the ability to spend enormous amounts of money on an election give a candidate an advantage over someone who has better ideas, more convincing policy proposals and a stronger understanding of the needs of ordinary Americans?

According to an October 31, 2026, analysis of Federal Election Commission data, the following is the breakdown of funds spent directly by candidates:

House candidates spent approximately $2.02 billion, while Senate candidates spent approximately $1.18 billion, bringing combined congressional candidate spending to approximately $3.2 billion.

These figures cover candidate spending, not the billions of dollars spent by outside political organizations and independent groups.

While the U.S. already has limits on certain contributions, that does not mean there is an overall limit on campaign spending. Many people are asking why there is no spending ceiling on election campaigns. The obstacle is largely constitutional, as the current system was shaped by two important Supreme Court decisions.

Buckley v. Valeo (1976): The Court struck down important limits on how much candidates could spend from their own resources, treating political spending as a form of protected political expression.

Citizens United v. FEC (2010): The Court ruled that corporations and unions could make unlimited independent expenditures advocating for or against candidates.

Consequently, Super PACs can receive unlimited contributions and spend unlimited amounts, provided their spending is genuinely independent of candidates' campaigns.

The Federal Election Commission's 2025-2026 rules, for example, limit an individual's direct contribution to a federal candidate to $3,500 per election, but independent expenditure-only committees are not subject to that contribution ceiling.

This creates a rather unusual situation: a candidate cannot accept an unlimited personal contribution from an individual, but a wealthy individual can contribute millions of dollars to a Super PAC supporting that candidate.

It is debatable whether a campaign spending cap would be a good democratic reform. Such a cap could reduce the advantage enjoyed by candidates with wealthy supporters, make elections less dependent on fundraising, encourage candidates to concentrate on explaining their policies and answering voters' questions, and make public service more accessible to people who are not wealthy or well-connected.

On the other hand, spending money is also a means of communicating political ideas. A spending restriction could make it harder for an unknown challenger to introduce himself or herself to voters. Restricting spending by some organizations while allowing newspapers, broadcasters and other voices to communicate freely raises First Amendment questions. Also, money could migrate into less transparent organizations or other channels, making enforcement difficult.

These are genuine constitutional and practical challenges, not simply excuses for maintaining the existing arrangement.

There are several reforms that could be debated without simply prohibiting political expression. Some of the suggested reforms include:

• Public campaign financing, through which the government provides candidates with campaign funds.
• Matching small-donor contributions from ordinary citizens with public money.
• Providing qualifying candidates with reasonable amounts of free broadcast time on television and radio.
• Making financial transparency mandatory so political organizations disclose who is financing their advertising.

Small-donor matching and public financing are particularly interesting because they could reduce candidates' dependence on a handful of wealthy contributors.

Being able to buy attention is not the same as being able to earn public confidence. A candidate might spend $100 million advertising his or her candidacy, but that expenditure does not establish that the candidate has, for example, a credible plan to address inflation, supports affordable health care, understands the financial difficulties facing working families or possesses the leadership qualities needed to govern.

Ultimately, voters must assess the substance of candidates' proposals, not merely the size of their advertising campaigns.

It is also ironic that candidates spend enormous amounts of time raising money instead of devoting that time to discussing the policies they intend to pursue.

A constitutional amendment might eventually be necessary to permit broader restrictions on election spending. But reforms such as public financing, small-donor matching and greater disclosure could also be pursued within the existing constitutional framework.

Should a person's influence over the selection of America's political leaders depend more on the size of their bank account than on the strength of their arguments and the quality of their ideas? That is a question that needs to be discussed widely as the country considers the financing of future U.S. general and presidential elections.