Every election year, voters can expect a deluge of campaign ads. But depending on the outcome of an ongoing legal battle now before the U.S. Supreme Court, there may be more ads than ever in future election years — and not just because the groups that spend money on elections regularly shatter spending records. These groups might soon see each dollar they spend go further, giving deep-pocketed interests even greater power to dominate the political conversation while drowning out the voices of everyday voters.
In March 2026, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) — the federal agency that regulates broadcasters — announced a new interpretation of a longstanding federal law that requires television and radio stations to provide discounted advertising to candidates immediately before their elections.
The new guidance states that the discount which is only available to candidates according to federal law and prior FCC guidance, would now extend to two new groups: (1) political party committees spending money in coordination with candidates and (2) joint fundraising committees (JFCs) that involve at least one candidate.
This drastic and unlawful expansion of the candidate-only ad discount rule would essentially guarantee more political ads during the remainder of the 2026 midterms and in future election cycles. That’s because every dollar in a party committee or JFC’s war chest will now be able to buy more ad time.
But that is far from the most serious consequence of the FCC’s flawed guidance: Coupled with two recent developments in campaign finance law — a Federal Election Commission (FEC) advisory opinion allowing super PACs to participate in JFCs with candidates, and a deadlocked FEC vote that will likely result in JFCs launching campaign-style ads expressly advocating for specific candidates — the new guidance would effectively allow super PACs to receive discounted ad rates when funding ads through JFCs.
JFCs exist solely to collect and allocate funds raised by multiple groups — typically including candidates’ campaigns, their leadership PACs, and the committees of their political party — that want to fundraise together and to pay shared expenses incurred in fundraising.
But now that super PACs can participate in and finance JFC ads that mimic campaign ads, including by explicitly urging voters to support or oppose specific candidates, the FCC’s extension of the broadcast ad discount to JFCs is especially problematic.
The FCC’s guidance could very well lead to super PAC-funded JFC ads supplanting candidates’ campaign ads, undercutting the fundamental reason behind the candidate ad discount rule: to ensure that candidates can afford to reach voters right before an election.
Numerous candidates have already formed super PAC JFCs, and if these groups can exploit an advertising discount, more will undoubtedly form. The ability for super PACs to use JFCs not only to coordinate with candidates, but also to access discounted advertising rates, is a doubly enticing proposition. The FCC’s position would ensure that super PACs will use JFCs to launch coordinated campaign-style ad blitzes at discounted rates — further empowering the big money donors that finance super PACs, and also further drowning out the voices of everyday Americans.
That’s why Campaign Legal Center (CLC) filed an amicus brief to support a lawsuit challenging the FCC’s 2026 guidance, arguing that the under federal law, the discounted ad rate — known as the “lowest unit charge” — is only available to candidates, not party committees or JFCs.
CLC’s brief highlights how the new FCC guidance will result in super PACs getting a discount on ad time that only candidates are entitled to receive. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit agreed that the FCC’s interpretation is unlawful and invalidated the FCC’s guidance on August 25, 2026.
However, the FCC and groups seeking to take advantage of its broad interpretation of the law have attacked the Fourth Circuit’s decision in an application asking the U.S. Supreme Court to prevent the decision from taking effect — which would leave the FCC’s unlawful interpretation in place through the November 2026 general election.
CLC filed another amicus brief with the Supreme Court urging it to leave in place the Fourth Circuit’s decision striking down the FCC guidance. The Supreme Court has not yet ruled, though the decision is expected any day.
Voters have a right to meaningful participation in the electoral process — and for their voices to be heard rather than drowned out by those with the deepest pockets. Campaign Legal Center will continue to urge the Supreme Court to recognize that the FCC plainly overreached by extending the lowest unit charge to party committees and JFCs — and, in effect, super PACs. The FCC’s lawless interpretation threatens to unleash even larger amounts of super PAC-funded political ads on voters — a development that will further elevate the electoral voice of ultrawealthy special interests, while drowning out everyone else’s voices.
To support the legal effort to strengthen campaign finance laws, join us today.