What Is Independent Expenditures?
Independent expenditures are a form of political spending made by individuals, groups, political committees, corporations, or labor unions to expressly advocate for the election or defeat of a clearly identified federal candidate, without any coordination, consultation, or cooperation with the candidate, their campaign, or a political party. This concept is a crucial element within the broader field of campaign finance, directly influencing the landscape of modern elections and the flow of money in politics. Unlike direct contributions to a campaign, independent expenditures are not subject to contribution limits under federal law, provided they are truly independent. They are a significant mechanism through which various entities engage in political discourse, often through advertising and voter mobilization efforts.
History and Origin
The framework for independent expenditures as they are understood today largely stems from a series of landmark judicial decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court, particularly concerning the First Amendment right to free speech. A pivotal moment arrived with the 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. This decision, heard by the Supreme Court, effectively held that laws restricting independent political spending by corporations and labor unions from their general treasuries are unconstitutional, asserting that such restrictions violate the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.16 This ruling overturned parts of previous decisions that had allowed prohibitions on independent expenditures by corporations and significantly reshaped the regulatory framework for money in politics.15 The Court maintained, however, that reporting and disclaimer requirements for independent expenditures and electioneering communications were constitutional.14 The aftermath of Citizens United led to a substantial increase in outside spending, especially by organizations such as super PACs that can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money.13
Key Takeaways
- Independent expenditures are political communications advocating for or against a candidate, made without coordination with a campaign or political parties.
- They are not subject to federal contribution limits due to interpretations of free speech rights.
- The Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission Supreme Court decision in 2010 was instrumental in allowing unlimited independent spending by corporations and labor unions.
- Entities making independent expenditures must adhere to strict disclosure requirements and include disclaimer notices on their communications.
- While increasing transparency through disclosure is a goal, challenges related to "dark money" persist.
Interpreting Independent Expenditures
Independent expenditures are typically interpreted as a measure of outside influence in political campaigns. An increase in independent expenditures often indicates heightened interest from external groups, political action committees, and other organizations in influencing election outcomes. The magnitude of these expenditures can sometimes rival or even exceed the spending by the candidates' own campaigns, particularly in highly contested races. For instance, in some competitive House districts, outside spending has been found to constitute a significant portion of the total money in the race, at times approaching or surpassing candidate spending.12 Understanding the source and purpose of independent expenditures provides insight into the various interests attempting to shape public opinion and election results.
Hypothetical Example
Imagine a competitive senatorial election in a fictional state, "Liberty." A non-profit advocacy group, "Citizens for a Better Liberty," believes that Candidate A is the ideal choice for the state. To support Candidate A, but without directly communicating with Candidate A's campaign staff, Citizens for a Better Liberty launches an extensive advertising campaign. This campaign involves television commercials, digital ads, and direct mail pieces, all explicitly urging voters to "Elect Candidate A for a Stronger Liberty."
Since the group does not coordinate with Candidate A's campaign, does not inform them of their spending plans, and operates completely separately, their spending on these ads would qualify as independent expenditures. They would be required to disclose their spending to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and include a disclaimer on all their advertisements indicating that the communication was not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. This would distinguish their efforts from direct campaign communications or [fundraising] (https://diversification.com/term/fundraising) activities.
Practical Applications
Independent expenditures are a ubiquitous feature of modern political campaigns, especially at the federal level. They manifest in various forms, including television and radio advertisements, digital media campaigns, direct mail, and grassroots organizing efforts. For example, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) provides detailed public data on independent expenditures, allowing observers to track spending by various groups and identify the candidates they support or oppose.10, 11 This data shows who was paid, the purpose, date, and amount of the expenditure, offering granular insight into how these funds are deployed.9 In 2018, independent expenditures in House and Senate elections alone totaled hundreds of millions of dollars, highlighting their significant role in the electoral process.8 Analysts often examine trends in independent expenditures to gauge the level of outside interest and the financial resources being poured into specific races. The Brookings Institution has published analyses on how outside spending, largely comprising independent expenditures, significantly increases the overall cost of Senate elections.7
Limitations and Criticisms
While intended to protect free speech, the system of independent expenditures faces several limitations and criticisms. One primary concern is the potential for a lack of true transparency regarding the ultimate source of funds, often referred to as "dark money." Critics argue that despite disclosure requirements, some organizations can obscure their donors' identities, making it difficult for the public to know who is influencing elections.5, 6 This lack of transparency can hinder voters' ability to evaluate the messages they receive.4
Another critique revolves around the assumption that independent expenditures cannot have a corrupting influence, a premise that has been challenged as the volume of outside spending has escalated.3 Some research suggests that while the amount of independent expenditures continues to increase, their effect on election outcomes might be marginal when compared to direct expenditures made by campaigns, especially given that independent expenditures overwhelmingly consist of ad buys.2 Furthermore, the proliferation of independent spending can lead to fragmented messaging, as outside groups may not coordinate their messages with a candidate's official campaign, potentially leading to conflicting or confusing communications.1
Independent Expenditures vs. Coordinated Expenditures
The distinction between independent expenditures and coordinated expenditures is critical in campaign finance. Independent expenditures are defined by their complete lack of coordination with a candidate's campaign or a political party. This independence is what exempts them from federal contribution limits, allowing for unlimited spending. The communication must expressly advocate for the election or defeat of a clearly identified federal candidate, but without any input or agreement from the candidate or their agents.
In contrast, coordinated expenditures are those made in cooperation, consultation, or concert with, or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate, their campaign, or a political party. Because they involve coordination, these expenditures are generally treated as in-kind contributions to a candidate or party and are therefore subject to strict contribution limits and reporting requirements. The legal framework aims to prevent coordinated spending from becoming a loophole around direct contribution limits. The primary point of confusion often lies in discerning whether true independence exists, as even subtle forms of coordination can transform an expenditure from "independent" to "coordinated," subjecting it to different rules.