In upcoming November midterm elections, the Republican Party faces a dire outlook. After a massive swing to the right just two years ago in 2024, the party is now bracing itself for the possibility of losing seats in both the House of Representatives and Senate, thanks to a historically-unpopular president. One source of hope for the GOP, however, is its large cash-on-hand advantage over the Democrats. Much of that advantage comes from political action committees (PACs) and outside groups. While the GOP’s spending advantage may make some races more competitive, it cannot guarantee victories for its slate of candidates. Although PACs can amplify the political voices of groups and individuals through a constitutional right to spend freely, their ability to spend enormous sums of money should come with greater transparency and stronger regulation to reduce the risk of corruption.

According to the Federal Election Commission, the Republican National Committee (RNC), entered September with $16 million cash-on-hand, far more than its Democratic counterpart, the DNC, who had $16.9 million on hand. And to make matters worse for the Democrats, the DNC is roughly $17.6 million in debt, meaning they cannot use their cash as efficiently as Republicans. Recently, conservative groups, PACs, and the RNC have begun to spend their dollars on ad buys, purchasing airtime in media markets home to competitive races. According to The New York Times, Republicans are set to outspend Democrats on advertising through November (roughly $888 million to $666 million). For Republicans, most of that difference is driven by outside groups such as PACs, who wield their massive war chests to support candidates using shady, behind-the-scenes techniques.

For example, in Ohio, Republicans enjoy a $30 million advantage in planned advertising spending, which could lead to a late shift in their extremely competitive Senate and Governor’s races. This general spending advantage will aid the Republicans in an election year that is historically unkind to the incumbency. Republicans will be able to pour millions into advertising to boost voter outreach and spread their message, potentially reaching disenfranchised or rural voters who planned to stay away from the polls this year. This cash advantage can also increase name recognition of candidates who would otherwise have little visibility. On the national level, these huge sums of money allows the RNC to defend seats at a time when they only need to hold three to retain the Senate.

Spending, however, has its limits. Not only does money fail to simply buy votes in elections, voters may choose to ignore ads and some may have pre-established preferences that cannot be changed as the country turns toward more polarization. Additionally, some ads backfire on the purchaser. In Arkansas, The New York Times reported that incumbent governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders’ new reelection ad about welfare drew strong MAGA backlash due to who was cast as the lazy, non-working recipient of government funds. This ultimately gave Huckabee Sanders widespread, negative publicity that may alienate some voters, even though in ruby-red Arkansas she is still considered the favorite to win.

It is also challenging to prove money spent leads to a race being competitive on Election Day. The GOP may have the cash advantage in this year’s midterms, but again, money cannot necessarily buy votes.

Even if Republicans do not benefit from their spending advantage, this election cycle has nonetheless become the most expensive in the nation’s history. This has stirred yet another round of debate over PACs and for many, their unfair spending in politics. Per Reuters, more than $11.6 billion has already been spent this election cycle alone, more than all of the cash burned during the entire 2024 presidential election. Thus, the issue is not whether PACs should exist, but instead how their spending should be handled. In the landmark 2010 Supreme Court case Citizens United vs FEC, the high court ruled that the First Amendment protected independent political expenditure by corporations and unions. Since independent spending is now constituted as a constitutional right, banning expenditure from outside groups and PACs would be subject to a flurry of legal challenges. But this is a problem and it leads to through-the-roof spending: the president’s super PAC, MAGA Inc., recently reported a massive $416 million in cash-on-hand per filing reports. This total is unrivaled by any Democratic spending group (and even the like-minded RNC).

Adding to the problem, some outside non-profit groups can receive unlimited contributions from corporations and wealthy donors. This money is called dark money and it is quite prevalent in our politics. According to the Brennan Center, $1.9 billion was spent by organizations with undisclosed donors in the 2024 election cycle. Voters have the right to know who is influencing their vote, and this requires mandating that organizations disclose their donors and keep their financial records in plain sight. As for the funds themselves, super PAC and outside group spending must be regulated in order to prevent coordination between the candidate and the group. This would reduce opportunities for wealthy donors to provide political support to politicians in exchange for favorable treatment. Common-sense regulation like this ensures that the limits on traditional spending cannot be bypassed and that PACs can continue to exist as means of political participation, while regulating dark money and corruption in politics.