‘a Transformative Time’: Both Parties Brace For Dramatic Campaign Fundraising Change Ahead Of The Midterms

Democratic consultants expected to submit bids to their House campaign committee for contracts to cut up to $100 million worth of television ads by late summer last year.

But as the 2026 midterms drew closer, no invitation ever came — a concrete sign of how the political parties are preparing for a potential earthquake in how the battle for Congress is waged.

This freeze, according to three people who are involved in the process and were granted anonymity to describe private decision-making, shows a significant shift in strategy for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. And it illustrates how a little-watched Supreme Court case could drastically upend how hundreds of millions of dollars are raised and spent every cycle in the fight for control of Congress.

The court’s pending decision could open the floodgates to even more campaign ads from the national parties and extend the timeline of campaign advertising much earlier into the summer. That would give the parties greater power in making their case directly to voters ahead of the 2026 midterms and potentially play to Republicans’ benefit in this year’s elections.

The Supreme Court is expected to decide the case, NRSC v. FEC, that could quietly but dramatically change how congressional elections are funded by giving political parties and their committees the ability to freely coordinate with candidates. The rules, if changed, would eliminate the need for “independent expenditure” operations for party committees — separate and firewalled arms of the committee that have spent a large chunk of campaign committees’ money since 2006, primarily on running TV advertising in the nation’s most competitive races.

“This is a transformative time, when it comes to how campaign committees and groups operate. People may cry that it puts more money into the system, but it’s actually just a more efficient use of resources and contributions of donors,” said Brock Lowrance, a Republican consultant who ran the National Republican Senatorial Committee’s independent expenditure in 2024. “Anyone who is not moving where the ball is going is going to be left behind.”

Interviews with more than a dozen strategists from both parties, many of whom were granted anonymity to describe private discussions, revealed how Republicans and Democrats alike are prepping multiple contingency plans, as they wait for the ruling. House Republicans, too, appear to be off their traditional timeline, as they haven’t announced an independent expenditure director, which they usually do in early January of election years.

If the Supreme Court sides with the NRSC, it would radically change coordination between candidates and the parties. By law, candidates pay the lowest possible rate for TV ads, a benefit not open to other spenders, including party committees and super PACs. In practice, that means candidates can often drop just a fraction of what those other outside spenders must.

That has generally advantaged Democrats, who have been more successful in raising low-dollar fundraising directly for their candidates, particularly since 2018, although Republicans are starting to draw closer to parity.

Should the Supreme Court eliminate coordination rules, party committees would in effect have access to that far-cheaper advertising rate. Parties could then flood the airwaves with even more ads, allowing their fundraising to go even further than it already does to influence voters ahead of Election Day.

It could shift the balance of TV ad spending toward campaign committees and away from super PACs — while super PACs would likely shoulder more of the digital and mail budgets.

Republicans — led by the NRSC and then-Senate candidate JD Vance — first brought the case in 2022, arguing that federal law limiting coordination between candidates and political parties is unconstitutional. Since then, the Republican lawyer behind the case at the NRSC, Ryan Dollar, has brought the case with him to the House side, where he now serves as the National Republican Congressional Committee’s general counsel.

The NRCC has “always been forward-looking and innovative” around campaign finance, and “if this [ruling] does happen,” then “they know how to function without an IE,” said one Republican consultant.

It’s unclear exactly how or when the court will rule. A June or July ruling could stymie efforts to capitalize fully on any potential changes in time for this year’s elections. But early maneuvering makes it clear neither party wants to be caught flat-footed in the middle of an intense cycle.

The DCCC has held briefings with consultants last month for how to prepare for these various contingencies, according to one strategist who is briefed on these private sessions. “Assuming [the ruling] comes down the way [the DCCC] expect, they don’t plan to set up an IE,” that strategist said.

“We’re at a tipping point,” where “these rulings will dictate how both the DCCC and [House Majority PAC, Democrats’ main super PAC] end up changing” in their roles and responsibilities in future cycles, said one person familiar with DCCC thinking.

Republicans are operating under similar assumptions.

The NRCC, Democrats’ House rival, has taken its own steps to prepare for a ruling in its favor, working to ease fears from television stations that a lower rate for political parties could hurt their bottom line.

In a memo obtained by POLITICO sent to broadcast stations and industry leaders last month, the NRCC argues that “any impact on station bottom lines would be minimal and largely offset by volume gains,” because more ads would be on the air, and potentially earlier in the cycle.

As political advertising continues to grow, “even if coordinated advertising captures a larger share of broadcast inventory, it is doing so inside a rapidly expanding total market, not a shrinking one,” the NRCC writes.

Based on their analysis of past cycles, about $140 million worth of ads would shift from the higher rate to the lowest rate allotted to candidates, something that the NRCC argues is “a small but manageable slice of stations’ total revenue.”

It’s possible that there could still be more litigation over the issue, especially if TV stations do not grant the lower rate even if the limits are struck down.

Strategists in both parties also emphasized that the committees were prepared for several contingencies, including standing up an independent expenditure “very quickly,” as well as “take advantage of hybrid advertising and other coordinated” spending, said a person who is familiar with the DCCC’s thinking.

NRCC spokesperson Mike Marinella said the GOP is “well aware of the implications of our case,” but would not comment on specific plans because “we are not in the business of telegraphing our strategy to Democrats through the press.”

In a statement, DCCC Deputy Executive Director Will Van Nuys said: “Republicans are rigging the system because they know their harmful policies are deeply unpopular with voters and they can’t hold onto their majority without changing the rules. If the Supreme Court decides to dilute the voice of voters and grassroots donors, the DCCC will do what is necessary to win the majority in 2026.”

Parties have already repeatedly tested the coordination spending limits in recent elections.

Republicans pioneered the down-ballot use of joint fundraising committees — a special type of committee that allows multiple organizations to pool resources together for fundraising — during the 2024 cycle. Then, a handful of Senate candidates set up joint committees with the NRSC to pay for campaign ads. Those ads appeared to be nearly identical to typical TV spots, except they would be framed as fundraising pleas for the last few seconds, including a QR code to donate.

The move saves potentially millions of dollars, as they can purchase the airtime at the cheaper candidate rate, not an independent expenditure rate. With a deadlocked Federal Election Commission and an ongoing court battle — which has been paused pending the Supreme Court’s decision on coordinated spending — Democrats embraced these ads too.

This spending was largely confined to Senate races in 2024. But now, Democratic strategists said they expect the practice to pop up for the first time in competitive House races, with one of those strategists predicting the DCCC could set up joint fundraising committees “in all the races they want to invest in,” a fundamental shift in campaign spending strategy that may trigger a slew of fresh compliance challenges.

If the Supreme Court guts the coordination limits, however, the use of these types of ad workarounds would likely become unnecessary because direct coordination between candidates and committees would be allowed. But if the justices opt to keep the limits in place, that case would continue to make its way through the courts.

Should the Supreme Court overturn limits on coordinated spending, party committees would dramatically accelerate their purchase of ad time, since they’d be able to purchase airtime at a reduced candidate cost compared with the more expensive outside group rate. Strategists in both parties said it could extend the length of time House races could air TV ads, moving the timeline to start in May, rather than in late August.

House races will become “longer, more drawn out campaigns” that “feel more like Senate and governor races,” said another House Democratic strategist.

The person added that candidates will have to air more harshly negative ads against their opponents, a messaging lane traditionally occupied by the independent expenditure unit — allowing the candidates to keep their hands clean.

Now, “candidates are going to have to punch,” they said.