Democrats love their lawfare. Last week, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) filed another lawsuit against the Federal Election Commission (FEC). Their latest grievance? The DCCC claims that Republicans exploit a so-called “loophole” in campaign finance law through certain television ads. According to their lawsuit, Republicans are disguising attack ads paid for by joint fundraising committees as fundraising ventures, thereby skirting fundraising caps.
But let’s be clear: what the Democrats are calling a “loophole” is, in fact, free speech. First Amendment protections are a fundamental right derived from our US Constitution, and attempts to restrict are about control, not fairness.
Joint fundraising is a legitimate, FEC-approved mechanism where multiple political committees collaborate to raise funds for election campaigns. It is an essential tool allowing candidates and parties to pool resources, expand their reach, and engage voters effectively. JFCs raise hard money that is disclosed.
More money in politics isn’t a problem in a thriving republic—it’s a great feature! Transparent money disclosed from private American donors is the best money in politics.
More money in campaigns empowers candidates to communicate their ideas and proposals widely. The more ads, messages, and perspectives circulate, the better-equipped voters are to make informed decisions. If Democrats want to work on campaign finance issues, they should investigate non-disclosed money through media actively working on political campaigns or media censoring.
Political campaigns are expensive. Running for office is more than showing up for debates or kissing babies; it requires a robust campaign infrastructure. TV ads, online advocacy, direct mail, staff, and even pizza for volunteers require funding—and a lot of it.
Recommended
Candidates need resources to communicate effectively with voters, convey their ideas, and differentiate themselves from opponents. Yes. Free Speech is expensive, but proven ideas, informed voters and better leaders emerge.
The more speeches we have, the more voters can hear directly from candidates and decide who deserves their vote. Limiting campaign finance is like putting on a muzzle to deprive the public of the full spectrum of ideas and choices available.
The DCCC’s complaint against the FEC is nothing more than a desperate attempt to silence Republican voices by attacking the use of joint fundraising committee ads. Rather than compete on the merits of their ideas, they aim to limit the information voters can access. They are using campaign finance laws not as a shield to protect the electoral process but as a weapon to suppress political rivals. If they genuinely believed in their messages, they wouldn’t need to change the rules mid-game to gain advantages.
Let’s not forget that Vice President Kamala Harris has already surpassed the $1 billion mark in her campaign fundraising. This milestone is not inherently problematic—if anything, it shows the level of support she has garnered. I think it is fantastic! It becomes hypocritical, however, when her party files a lawsuit to limit Republican fundraising strategies while Harris’s own campaign benefits from the very methods the DCCC is suing over. The Democrats seem more interested in playing a hypocritical version of “you can’t do what we are actually doing.”
Political leaders and government officials must avoid any attempts to circumvent the First Amendment. Rules of campaigning and free speech protections should never be manipulated as political leverage. It is a dangerous precedent when lawmakers and politicians use their power to restrict speech—especially political speech.
Joint fundraising committees and other legally approved entities play a critical role in educating voters and ensuring citizens have the information they need to make an informed choice at the ballot box. Congress and the FEC should make no law restricting their ability to do so. Limiting political speech or financial contributions this way tips the scales in favor of those who already hold power – which is a dangerous precedent.
More money in politics means more competition. Initiates often have an advantage because they already have name recognition and a war chest with established donor networks. Limiting campaign contributions or joint fundraising mechanisms only serves to entrench unfair advantages. New challengers, grassroots candidates, and lesser-known voices need the resources to get their message out and compete on an equal footing. If the Democrats were truly committed to fairness, they would support measures that amplify voices rather than stifle them.
The marketplace of ideas thrives when there is competition, and competition in politics requires resources. Rather than demonize transparent money in campaigns, we should view it as the fuel that keeps the engine of democracy running. When more voices are heard and candidates have the means to share their vision, voters are better equipped to make choices that align with their best values. The DCCC’s lawsuit against the FEC is an attack on the very principles of free speech. It’s time for politicians to stop using the law as a tool for political gain and start respecting Americans' rights to hear from all sides.
Shaun McCutcheon is a Free Speech advocate, an Alabama-based electrical engineer, Multipolar founder, and the successful plaintiff in the 2014 Supreme Court case McCutcheon v. FEC.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member