An independent expenditure is money spent on communications that expressly support or oppose a clearly identified federal candidate, made without consultation, request, or cooperation with that candidate or the candidate's party. Federal law caps direct contributions to candidates but places no dollar limit on independent expenditures, as long as the spender stays on the independent side of the coordination line.
In practice, single donors can route unlimited sums through super PACs that buy television ads, mailers, and digital media attacking or boosting a candidate. A billionaire who writes one check to a super PAC backing a single Senate candidate is engaging in independent expenditure, even when that candidate is a former employee.
The independence requirement is enforced almost entirely on paper. Coordination rules at the FEC are narrow, and consultants, vendors, and fundraisers often move between a campaign and its supportive super PAC, raising questions about whether the spending is truly independent in any meaningful sense.
Independent expenditures let one wealthy donor outspend an entire grassroots base because the legal cap doesn't apply. Voters often see ads that look like a campaign's but are funded by a single patron, blurring whose money is shaping their choices.
People often think independent expenditures are made by unconnected outside groups. In practice, the donor and candidate frequently know each other personally — the rules only forbid certain forms of coordination, not all relationships.
Independent expenditures let one wealthy donor outspend an entire grassroots base because the legal cap doesn't apply. Voters often see ads that look like a campaign's but are funded by a single patron, blurring whose money is shaping their choices.
People often think independent expenditures are made by unconnected outside groups. In practice, the donor and candidate frequently know each other personally — the rules only forbid certain forms of coordination, not all relationships.