Graham Platner, then-Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate in Maine, presents an anti-corruption policy plan outside incumbent Republican Senator Collins’s office in Portland, June 25, 2026. (Photo by Emma Davis/Maine Morning Star)
A recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court makes it easier for political parties to make a mark on major campaigns as the fight for control of Congress intensifies in the midterm elections.
Simply put, the ruling “gives the parties more money to spend,” said David Kolker, senior counsel at the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center.
In its decision of June 30, by a 6-3 majority, the court established spending limits for political parties in coordination with specific candidates.
But will it change anything, especially in… Senate races for mega money in Ohio, Maine, Texas, Iowa and elsewhere?
Maybe not just dollars from large donors. Yes, in terms of strengthening the role of political parties and how they utilize those dollars to support campaigns.
“The idea that there’s going to be an explosion of money that isn’t there yet, I don’t really see that. The super PAC money is already there,” said Brendan Glavin, the firm’s director of research OpenSecrets.orga nonpartisan group dedicated to tracking and analyzing money in politics. Super PACs can spend unlimited amounts regardless of campaign.
Don Levy, director of the Siena Research Institute, saw evidence in July of how willing the parties were to spend money – or withdraw it.
Democratic Maine Senate candidate Graham Platner’s now-defunct campaign has been rocked by new allegations of sexual abuse, which he has denied. Siena polls in Maine.
When the scandal broke, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairwoman Kirsten Gillibrand (both of New York) issued a terse statement three-sentence statement in response.
One of those sentences read: “DSCC will not invest in the Maine Senate race if Platner remains on the ballot.”
That means money is “the most important thing” for the party, Levy said. Senator Susan Collins of Maine is seeking re-election in a state won by Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris in 2024 by 7 points.
Court and large money
The Supreme Court is methodically tearing down barriers designed to limit large money in politics.
In 2010 Citizens United decision repealed decades-old restrictions on independent corporate spending, allowing them to spend unlimited amounts of their corporate profits to support candidates of their choice.
This ruling led to the creation of super PACs, allowing special interests to raise and spend unlimited funds to support political candidates.
Analysis by Daniel Weiner, director of elections and government at the Brennan Center for Justice, said their funding “comes primarily from a small group of the wealthiest donors.”
Between 2010 and 2022, super PACs spent approx $6.4 billion regarding federal elections. They spent an estimated $2.7 billion on the 2024 election.
There were and still are restrictions on donations to specific candidates and political parties. Super PACs cannot coordinate with campaigns.
Until the Supreme Court’s ruling, there were limitations on the scope of coordination of the parties’ activities. Not anymore.
The sites “complained that outside super PACs were outspending them. It’s debatable whether that’s true or not,” Kolker said.
But the court’s decision makes it easier for large donors to give money to parties, knowing that parties can now seamlessly give it to the candidates they believe they need most.
Republicans pressed for the ruling, with many GOP members believing Democrats had the advantage of getting larger, often smaller, donations to their candidates while Republicans relied on larger donors who felt more bound by contribution limits and limits.
Republicans welcomed the decision.
“By removing these unconstitutional restrictions on coordinated spending, the Court has restored the core of political speech and ensured that the parties can compete on a level playing field,” said a joint statement from Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, and Rep. Richard Hudson of North Carolina, who chairs the House Republican Campaign Committee.
Democrats saw things completely differently. The ruling “is a victory for billionaire donors and interest groups who want greater influence over the GOP agenda and invitations to corruption,” said a joint statement from Democratic Party Chairman Ken Martin, Rep. Suzan DelBene, D-Wash., who heads the party’s House campaign committee, and Gillibrand.
Maine and other swing states under Senate control
Democrats need a net gain of four Senate and three House seats in the November elections to gain control of those chambers.
The biggest money will likely go to a handful of Senate races.
Maine is a top target for Democrats, though confusion over Platner’s candidacy makes it unpredictable.
It was a competitive race. In Siena/New York Times/Portland Press Herald June 19-26 poll, before the latest Platner controversy broke out, Collins was leading by 2 points. Trump’s approval rating was 36%.
Maine Democrats have until July 27 to choose a replacement for Platner, who left the race on July 8.
The court’s ruling “is not going to be a significant game-changer in terms of the amount of money coming into a competitive race. They already have money from Super PACs and they already have mega-donors who are donating to events,” Glavin said.
Money may matter more in Ohio, where Big expenses in 2024 — a record $483.4 million in a non-presidential election, according to AdImpact — helped Republicans portray incumbent Sen. Sherrod Brown, a Democrat, as out of touch in a state that was popular with the GOP. Brown lost to Republican businessman Bernie Moreno by 4 points.
“I think money made a difference last time because it fueled negative views of Brown,” said Jessica Taylor, editor-in-chief of Senate and Governors at the nonpartisan Cook Political Report. Brown will now be able to leverage greater party knowledge and funding by running this year against Sen. Jon Husted, a Republican appointed to the seat in 2025 to replace Vice President J.D. Vance.
Iowa is a different kind of money battleground. “The money could make a big difference if Democrats spent it,” Taylor said. Democrats are seeking the seat currently held by Senator Joni Ernst, a Republican who is not seeking re-election. State Rep. Josh Turek, a Democrat, is running against state Rep. Ashley Hinson, a Republican.
Levy gave this example of where shifting party money can make a difference. Let’s assume the polls hold and former Gov. Roy Cooper, a Democrat, remains favored to win the North Carolina Senate seat currently held by Republican Thom Tillis in his campaign against Republican Michael Whatley.
“The national party could say we’re going to count out North Carolina because Cooper has a big lead and he’s extremely well known in the state. He would be hard to beat,” Levy said. Perhaps they would direct more money to Texas, where state Rep. James Talarico and Attorney General Ken Paxton they were tied up in a survey conducted in Siena last month.
The court’s ruling gives “significantly more power to party leaders to control how these funds are spent,” Kolker said, and possibly more clout to Congress itself, making it easier to impose party discipline.
Does large money matter?
Experts are quick to warn that large money is not a sure guarantee of success.
There are simply too many moving parts influencing voters – including their economic situation, their views on President Donald Trump and their disenchantment with the political establishment.
“You want to have solid television, but in many races the political environment will still be a factor,” Taylor said.
Often, the most essential thing for a candidate and a political party is to build an image and reputation and maintain it, which is why officials usually win in subsequent elections.
“There is still a dominant advantage. There are cycles where voter dissatisfaction and frustration reaches a point where the only way to express their frustration is to vote against whoever is in power,” he said Todd Eberlyprofessor of political science at St. Mary’s College of Maryland.
Maine provides a powerful example of the advantages and disadvantages of money.
Collins has been a senator since 1997. “Collins will leverage her strength. Mainers, regardless of what the left says, believe she has good moral character and is in touch with the values of Mainers,” Levy said.
Democrats will undoubtedly try to link her to Trump and the Washington establishment. At the same time, he said, “Maine is an affordable state and money will come there to say Susan Collins is in tune with Maine.”
The race will be a test of all the factors that go into the race, both financial and otherwise.
“For candidates who spend more, the likelihood of winning has increased significantly,” Eberly said. “With one exception. If you’re an official, it (big spending) doesn’t make much of a difference.”
