During one week in early September, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), one of her joint fundraising committees and a super PAC supporting her campaign each bought airtime on a Portland television station during “Wheel of Fortune.”

Collins’ campaign and her joint fundraising committee (JFC) each paid $2,200 for a 30-second spot. Pine Tree Results PAC, the pro-Collins super PAC, paid $10,000 for each of two spots — more than four times as much.

That difference has traditionally reflected federal campaign finance rules. In the weeks before an election, federal law requires broadcasters to offer candidates the “lowest unit charge,” or the cheapest rate available for comparable commercial airtime. Outside groups, including super PACs, have generally paid higher market rates.

A recent Supreme Court order, however, could alter that system. On Sept. 4, the court temporarily reinstated a Federal Communications Commission interpretation that allows political parties and JFCs to receive the same discounted rates historically reserved for candidates. Campaign finance experts warn that, because a separate Federal Election Commission decision permits JFCs to include super PACs, the arrangement could give outside groups an indirect path to candidate-priced advertising.

“If you’re a wealthy person who wants to support your preferred candidates to the maximum extent possible, you now have another vehicle through which you can direct very large amounts of money,” said Erin Chlopak, a senior director of campaign finance at the Campaign Legal Center.

The Campaign Legal Center filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to leave a lower-court ruling in place. It described JFCs as “a perfect vehicle for super PACs seeking to finance campaign-style ads at LUC rates” and said the avenue “will almost certainly be exploited by super PACs and other soft money groups” if the FCC notice takes effect.

“That [super PAC] could pay for campaign advertising, and because the candidate is a participant in the JFC, under the FCC’s interpretation, they would get the benefit of the lowest unit charge,” Chlopak said.

A series of rule changes

The current dispute follows a rapid series of changes in federal campaign finance rules. In 2024, an FEC advisory opinion opened the door for super PACs to participate in JFCs alongside candidates. The arrangement allows nominally independent groups to raise money together with campaigns. The FEC opinion is available at and

In March, the FCC issued a public notice interpreting federal law to allow JFCs and political parties to receive lowest-unit-charge rates historically reserved for candidates. The FCC guidance is available at

Then, in June, the Supreme Court struck down longstanding limits on how much political parties could spend in coordination with federal candidates. Robert Kelner and colleagues at the Washington-based law firm Covington \u0026 Burling wrote that the decision “can be expected to breathe new life into party power in campaign spending.”

Taken together, the changes increase the efficiency of coordinated party spending. “That decision, combined with the FCC decision saying, ‘And by the way, when parties coordinate with candidates, they get the benefit of this discounted advertising rate,’ means not only can you give more money to help the candidates, but that money will go even further because the costs of advertising are going to be lower,” Chlopak said.

The result, she said, is that party-funded advertising has become “quite an appealing enterprise.”

Republican National Committee Chairman Joe Gruters offered a more direct assessment in a June interview with the right-leaning Washington Reporter. He said access to candidate rates could ultimately allow the party to pay “20 cents on the dollar” for such ads.

“We’re going to be able to obliterate these guys, and then we’re going to be able to work directly with the candidates and make sure that we’re having maximum efficiency,” Gruters said. The interview is available at

The changes could also shift donor incentives, “even if only slightly,” toward political parties rather than outside groups because parties can use contributions more efficiently, said Erika Franklin Fowler, a co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project, which tracks broadcast advertising in federal elections.

“Some see this as a good thing because it places a bit more power in the hands of parties, which, in general, are more accountable to voters than are groups,” Fowler said.

The Collins campaign’s television buys

Documents filed with the FCC by Portland ABC affiliate WMTW-TV for the week of Sept. 1-7 list dozens of advertisements purchased by the Collins campaign, Susan Collins for Maine — one of her JFCs — and Pine Tree Results PAC. The filings are available through the campaign, JFC and PAC documents at and

All three bought airtime during “Wheel of Fortune” in a week that included the start of the 60-day period during which candidates must receive the lowest unit charge. The station charged Collins’ campaign and her JFC $2,200 each for fixed placements during the episode broadcast Friday, Sept. 4, the first day of that period.

Pine Tree Results PAC paid $10,000 for each of two spots in a weekday rotation during the same week. Neither spot had a guaranteed airdate.

Pine Tree Results is not only a super PAC supporting Collins’ reelection campaign. FEC records show that it also participates in Collins Victory Committee, a separate JFC that includes Collins’ campaign, her leadership PAC and the National Republican Senatorial Committee. The committee’s FEC records are available at

Under the Supreme Court’s order, the JFC listing Pine Tree Results PAC as a participant could potentially access the $2,200 lowest-unit-charge rate instead of the $10,000 market rate the super PAC paid as a standalone buyer. The price difference illustrated by Collins’ race may therefore not continue.

Federal law has long required broadcasters to offer candidates the lowest unit charge — the lowest rate available for comparable commercial airtime — during the final weeks before an election. The discount is intended to ensure that candidates can communicate with voters even when advertising prices rise sharply.

Super PACs and party committees have historically been excluded from those rates and have paid substantially more for the same airtime. In late August, a Fourth Circuit panel reaffirmed that interpretation, striking down the FCC’s March notice and ruling that the statute is “unambiguous” in granting the discount only to candidates themselves.

The Republican Party’s Capitol Hill committees, the National Republican Congressional Committee and the NRSC, joined the case and appealed. They argued that the panel lacked jurisdiction to invalidate the FCC’s public notice because the notice was not final and remained under review. They asked the Supreme Court for an immediate stay to prevent broadcasters from rescinding the FCC-approved expansion of lowest-unit-charge rates during the election season.

The Trump administration filed a brief supporting the Republican groups and argued that the Democratic candidates lacked standing. OpenSecrets said it contacted both Republican Hill committees but received no response from either.

The Supreme Court’s Sept. 4 order sided with the Republican groups and reinstated the FCC’s interpretation. Under that interpretation, coordinated party and JFC advertisements are treated as “candidate use” and are therefore eligible for the lowest unit charge. The order is available at

In a joint statement responding to the stay, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Executive Director Devan Barber and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Deputy Executive Director Will Van Nuys condemned “a concerted effort by [President] Donald Trump and national Republicans to flood the midterm elections with money from billionaire donors.” The statement is available at

Effects on the 2026 midterms

Although the order is not a final decision, it immediately changes the rules for the 2026 midterm elections.

The Republican Hill committees are most likely to benefit in the short term because their cash reserves are larger than those of their Democratic counterparts, said Michael Beckel, director of money-in-politics reform at the nonpartisan research group Issue One.

FEC records through June 30 showed that the NRCC had $92 million in cash on hand and the NRSC had $56 million. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee had $80 million, while the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee had just under $40 million. Beckel predicted that both parties would “also try to stockpile significant political cash for coordinated ads at low rates.”

Beckel and Fowler said the order is unlikely to give either party a lasting advantage. “Historically, both parties have quickly adapted to changes in the campaign finance landscape,” Beckel said.

“Bottom line: Voters will be seeing a lot more ads sponsored by party committees this fall, even as ads sponsored by super PACs and dark money groups continue. Ads by super PACs and dark money groups are not going away, even as parties spend more on coordinated ads with candidates,” he said.

Beckel said the ruling also raises longer-term questions about the influence of megadonors. Under current limits, an individual may give no more than $7,000 directly to a candidate’s campaign when contributing the maximum $3,500 allowed for both the primary and general elections.

Individuals may give up to $44,300 per year to each party committee. With limits on coordinated spending by parties and candidates removed, and with parties able to stretch those contributions through lower advertising rates, the potential scale of such spending changes substantially.

“Megadonors can now give hundreds of thousands of dollars to the party for coordinated expenditures with that same candidate,” Beckel said. “If we see mega-joint fundraising committees emerge for House and Senate candidates similar to the mega-joint fundraising committees that frequently boost presidential candidates, wealthy megadonors may be able to give more than $1 million through the parties to benefit a specific candidate. Such large contributions increase the risk of corruption and the appearance of corruption.”

Fowler said that giving parties access to the lowest unit charge could ultimately increase transparency if the advertisements carry explicit party labels that “often help viewers better understand the sponsors.”

“We think of the purchasing power more in terms of the structural benefit afforded to candidates than we do about current partisan fundraising advantages, which can change from cycle to cycle,” she said.

The article was originally published by OpenSecrets, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that tracks money in politics.