Campaign Finance, Super PACs, and Citizens United
Federal law caps what people can give directly to candidates, but groups that spend independently can raise unlimited money. Texas sets no dollar limits on most contributions to state candidates but bans corporate and union contributions. The debate is over whether to loosen limits, require more disclosure, or overturn Citizens United.
The basics
Federal law limits how much one person can give to a federal candidate2. For the 2025 to 2026 cycle, the cap is $3,500 per election, $5,000 per year to a traditional PAC, and $44,300 per year to a national party committee2.
In Citizens United v. FEC, decided January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 that the government cannot limit independent spending on elections by corporations and unions1. Eight justices voted to uphold rules requiring ads to identify their funders1. Two months later, a federal appeals court ruling in SpeechNow.org v. FEC removed contribution caps for groups that only make independent expenditures, which became known as super PACs1.
Super PACs may accept unlimited contributions, including from corporations and unions2. Their spending counts as independent only if it is not made in consultation or cooperation with a candidate, and they must report it to the Federal Election Commission3.
On June 30, 2026, in NRSC v. FEC, the Supreme Court struck down federal limits on how much political parties can spend in coordination with their own candidates, overruling a 2001 decision4. Base contribution limits, earmarking rules, and disclosure requirements remain in effect4.
In Pew Research Center polling, 72% of Americans said there should be limits on how much money individuals and organizations can spend on political campaigns, including about 76% of Democrats and 71% of Republicans8.
Key terms
- Contribution limit
- A cap on how much a donor may give a candidate, party, or PAC, such as $3,500 per election to a federal candidate in 2025 to 20262.
- Independent expenditure
- Spending that expressly supports or opposes a candidate and is not made in cooperation with that candidate3.
- Super PAC
- An independent-expenditure-only committee that can raise unlimited sums, including from corporations and unions2.
- Citizens United v. FEC
- The 2010 Supreme Court ruling that corporations and unions may spend unlimited amounts independently on elections1.
- Dark money
- A term critics use for election spending by groups that do not have to disclose their donors; supporters of those groups describe it as protected donor privacy67.
In Texas
Texas sets no dollar limit on contributions from individuals, PACs, or state parties to state candidates, and it bans contributions from labor unions and most corporations59. Cash contributions totaling more than $100 from one donor in a reporting period are also prohibited9. Judicial candidates face additional restrictions under separate rules9.
Candidates for city and county offices, such as Colleyville City Council or Tarrant County commissioner, file reports locally: with the city secretary for city offices, and with the county clerk or elections administrator for county offices9. Reports are due January 15 and July 15 each year, plus 30 days and 8 days before an election for opposed candidates9. The Texas Ethics Commission administers these rules and can fine violators9.
How people see it
The strongest case for each view, in terms its supporters would recognize. We don't pick a side.
Loosen limits and protect donor privacy
Supporters say spending money to spread a political message is protected speech, and limits mainly protect incumbents who are already well known. They favor raising or repealing contribution limits and oppose forcing private groups to reveal their donors, which they say discourages people from taking part in public debate7. They note the Supreme Court has recognized that donor disclosure can expose supporters of unpopular causes to threats and reprisals10.
Keep the current rules
Supporters say today's system strikes a workable balance: direct gifts to candidates are capped and disclosed, while independent groups are free to speak. They argue the Supreme Court has settled the major questions and frequent changes create confusion.
Keep spending legal but require full disclosure
Supporters say voters deserve to know who is paying for political ads. They back proposals such as the DISCLOSE Act, which would require groups running election ads to name donors who give more than $10,0006. They argue sunlight works without limiting how much anyone can spend.
Overturn Citizens United and add public financing
Supporters say large sums from wealthy donors and corporations drown out ordinary voters and invite corruption. They favor a constitutional amendment to undo Citizens United, which the 2024 Democratic platform describes as banning all private financing of federal elections, along with keeping super PACs fully separate from campaigns and matching small donations with public funds6.
Who decides
- U.S. Congress: Writes federal campaign finance law, including contribution limits and disclosure rules.
- Federal Election Commission: Enforces federal campaign finance law and collects reports.
- U.S. Supreme Court: Decides whether limits are consistent with the First Amendment.
- Texas Legislature: Sets contribution rules and reporting requirements for state and local races.
- Texas Ethics Commission: Administers and enforces Texas campaign finance law.
Questions to ask a candidate
- Should Texas set dollar limits on contributions to state candidates, as most states do?
- Should groups that run election ads have to disclose their large donors?
- Do you support or oppose a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United?
- Will you accept money from super PACs or groups that do not disclose donors?
Last reviewed 2026-09-26. Spotted something wrong? Every claim links to its source so you can check it yourself.
Sources
- Citizens United v. FEC definitionUSAFacts
- Contribution limits for 2025-2026Federal Election Commission
- Making independent expendituresFederal Election Commission
- Supreme Court finds limits on coordinated party expenditures unconstitutional in NRSC v. FECFederal Election Commission
- State Limits on Contributions to Candidates, 2025-2026 Election CycleNational Conference of State Legislatures
- 2024 Democratic Party PlatformThe American Presidency Project, UC Santa Barbara
- 2016 Republican Party PlatformThe American Presidency Project, UC Santa Barbara
- Most Americans favor big changes to the political system that likely would require amending the ConstitutionPew Research Center
- Campaign Finance Guide for Candidates and Officeholders Who File With Local Filing AuthoritiesTexas Ethics Commission
- Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, 594 U.S. 595 (2021)Supreme Court of the United States