Political Advertising Spending Continues to Grow: Understanding the Landscape and the Role of Compliance
By: Alexander Lee
The 2026 election cycle is on pace to become the most expensive political advertising cycle in American history. According to updated projections by AdImpact, a leading ad intelligence and analytics firm, total spending across all races is expected to reach $11.6 billion this cycle. This would be more than a 30% increase over the $8.9 billion spent in the 2022 midterms and would also eclipse the $11.2 billion spent during the 2024 presidential cycle. Through June 1, 2026, AdImpact had tracked $4.0 billion in political advertising, a 46% increase over the same point in 2024.
As campaigns, party committees, and outside groups continue to raise and deploy these enormous sums, it is essential that political operatives, compliance officers, and general counsel remember the legal categories that govern this spending.
Broadly, political ad spending falls into four categories:
Expenditures by Federal Campaign Committees
Communications by campaign committees, which are subject to contribution limits, expressly call for the election or defeat of a particular candidate, and are subject to disclaimer requirements and specific rules against coordination with other organizations and political committees.
Independent Expenditures (IEs)
IEs are expenditures for communications that expressly advocate for the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate, without any coordination with the identified candidate's campaign. IEs may be paid for by traditional hard-money committees, federal IE-only political committees (i.e., “Super PACs”), or outside groups such as tax-exempt 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations.
Electioneering Communications (EC)
ECs are broadcast, cable, or satellite advertisements that refer to a clearly identified federal candidate, are publicly distributed within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election, and are targeted to the relevant electorate.
Issue Advocacy
Issue advocacy refers to communications that discuss policy positions or legislative matters without expressly advocating for the election or defeat of a specific candidate. Social welfare organizations primarily engage in issue advocacy.
Alaska: A High-Spend State
One of the most interesting stories of the 2026 cycle is Alaska's shift into a top battleground for political spending. AdImpact's projections show Alaska climbing from $32 million in initial estimates to $202 million, a 531% increase driven by the increasingly competitive Senate and gubernatorial races following the State’s adoption of a ranked-choice voting system. The spending comes from a wide variety of sources, and a recent review of AdImpact’s political advertising expenditure data for the Alaska Senate race illustrates the intensity of spending by both new and established outside groups.
One example is Majority Forward, a prominent outside group that regularly engages in issue advocacy nationwide and has significantly influenced Alaska’s advertising landscape. Majority Forward has spent ~$7.4 million this election cycle on negative issue advocacy advertisements against Senator Dan Sullivan, with nearly $5 million of that ad spending occurring in the 90 days before the August 18th primary.
The increase in spending isn’t driven exclusively by established groups active in multiple states. AdImpact data also shows significant spending by new groups. For example, 907 Initiative, an Alaska-based social welfare organization, has spent almost $1.5 million this election cycle on negative communications targeting Senator Dan Sullivan, with approximately $572,000 spent in the 90 days leading up to the August 18th primary.
Why Compliance Matters in Political Spending
Organizations, political committees, political consultants, and donors engaging in political spending are highly regulated, and given what is projected to be historic levels of political spending, they must prioritize a robust compliance program.
Contributions & Restrictions on Contributions
Certain organizations engaging in political spending, such as Super PACs, are not subject to limits on the amount of contributions they may receive from one source. However, other federal political committees, including candidate committees and political party committees, are subject to contribution limits. For example, in the 2025-2026 election cycle, an individual is limited to giving $3,500 to a candidate committee for the primary election and an additional $3,500 for the general election.
Federal election law prohibits corporations and certain other entities from making contributions directly to federal candidates, though corporations may facilitate political spending through corporate-sponsored PACs and by donating to Super PACs. As spending volumes increase, so does the risk of inadvertent violations, particularly when organizations move quickly to place advertising in competitive races.
Contributions can be monetary or in-kind. An in-kind contribution can occur when a person or entity pays for goods or services on a political committee’s behalf, or when goods or services are offered for free or at less than the usual charge.
Additionally, an expenditure made by any person or entity in cooperation, consultation or concert with, or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate’s campaign is considered an in-kind contribution to the candidate.
Coordination
Coordination rules are among the most important and misunderstood areas of campaign finance law. Under the Federal Election Commission’s (FEC) rules, a communication is treated as a coordinated communication— and thus as an in-kind contribution—if it meets a three-prong test: (1) it is paid for by a third party, (2) it meets certain content standards, and (3) it meets conduct standards showing certain interactions with a campaign. Conduct standards can be triggered by a candidate’s direct request for, or material involvement in, the communication. They can also be met when the candidate and a third party share a common vendor or when a third party employs a former campaign employee or contractor.
While the Supreme Court in NRSC v. FEC recently struck down federal limits on coordinated spending between candidates and political parties, coordination rules still apply to communications paid for by Super PACs and other organizations.
Reporting and disclosure obligations
Reporting and disclosure obligations require campaigns, PACs, and certain outside groups to file regular reports with the FEC detailing their receipts, expenditures, and donors. Independent expenditure-only committees (Super PACs) face specific reporting triggers when they spend above certain thresholds close to an election. Organizations making electioneering communications must also disclose their spending and, in some cases, their donors.
Disclaimer requirements apply to virtually all public political communications. Under FEC regulations, independent expenditures and electioneering communications must include clear disclaimers identifying who paid for the communication and whether a candidate authorized it. The specific format varies based on the type of communication and medium. Digital, broadcast, print, and direct mail advertisements each carry distinct requirements, and failure to include proper disclaimers can expose organizations to enforcement actions.
Conclusion
Retaining experienced election law counsel early, before advertisements are placed and vendor relationships are finalized, is the most effective way to mitigate risk and ensure that every dollar spent effectively advances an organization's goals while remaining compliant with complex laws and regulations.
