Campaign Finance Basics: Limits, PACs and Dark Money

Money in elections runs through a handful of channels, and each has its own rules. Mix them up and you will say something false even when every number you cite is right. Learn the channels first. The reports in the next lessons will make sense after that.

Contributions and limits

A contribution is anything of value given to a candidate or committee to influence an election. Idaho's definition in 67-6602 includes money, loans, advances, pledges and in-kind goods or services valued at fair market price. Volunteer time is excluded. A printer who donates 5,000 postcards has made a contribution worth what those postcards would cost to buy.

Race	Limit per contributor	Source
Idaho Legislature, judicial, and local offices (county, city, school board)	$1,000 for the primary, $1,000 for the general	Idaho Code 67-6610A
Idaho statewide offices (governor, attorney general and the like)	$5,000 for the primary, $5,000 for the general	Idaho Code 67-6610A
Party county or state central committee to a legislative candidate	$2,000 per election	Idaho Code 67-6610A
Party state central committee to a statewide candidate	$10,000 per election	Idaho Code 67-6610A
Federal: individual to a congressional or presidential candidate	$3,500 per election (2025 to 2026)	FEC
Federal: individual to a PAC	$5,000 per year	FEC
Federal: multicandidate PAC to a candidate	$5,000 per election	FEC

A few Idaho details matter when you read reports. Recall and special elections count like a general election. Affiliated businesses (shared majority board, shared officers, common ownership, parent and subsidiary) count as one contributor, so three LLCs owned by the same person do not get three limits. A committee financed by one person and controlled by that person counts as that person. And since 2021, Idaho Code 67-6610D bars foreign nationals from contributing or making independent expenditures in Idaho races, with felony penalties for knowing violations above $1,000 in a 12-month period.

PACs

In Idaho, a political committee is any person or group specifically designated to support or oppose candidates or measures, or anyone who takes in contributions and spends more than $1,000 in a calendar year for that purpose (67-6602). Party county and regional committees become political committees only above $5,000 a year. Committees register, name a treasurer, keep a separate account and report. They can give to candidates within the limits above.

Federally, the common types are connected PACs (sponsored by a corporation, union or trade group, raising money from employees or members), nonconnected PACs, and party committees. A multicandidate PAC can give a candidate $5,000 per election.

Independent expenditures and coordination

An independent expenditure is spending on a message that expressly urges people to vote for or against a candidate or measure, made without cooperating or consulting with the campaign. Idaho's definition counts words like "vote for," "elect," "defeat" and "reject" as express advocacy.

Independent expenditures have no contribution limit, because the money never goes to the candidate. The trade-off is independence. If the group plans the ad with the campaign, shares a strategist or acts at the campaign's request, the FEC treats the spending as coordinated, which makes it a contribution subject to limits. The FEC's coordination test looks at who paid, what the message says, and how the payer and campaign interacted, including common vendors and former staff.

Super PACs

In January 2010, Citizens United v. FEC struck down the federal ban on independent expenditures by corporations and unions. A few months later a federal appeals court, in SpeechNow.org v. FEC, held that limits on contributions to groups that only make independent expenditures could not stand. The result is the Super PAC: a federal committee that may raise unlimited amounts from individuals, corporations and unions, must disclose its donors to the FEC, and may not give money to candidates.

Citizens United also matters for what it kept. The Court upheld federal disclaimer and disclosure requirements, with eight justices joining that part of the opinion. People who quote the case only for "unlimited money" miss that half.

Electioneering communications

Some ads mention a candidate without saying "vote for" or "defeat." "Call Commissioner Ames and tell her to stop the rate hike," run three weeks before a primary, is the classic case. Idaho calls this an electioneering communication when it unambiguously refers to a candidate within 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general and reaches that candidate's voters. Under Idaho Code 67-6628, whoever pays files a statement once costs exceed $100, within 48 hours once costs reach $1,000, and the statement must list the names and addresses of people who gave the filer $50 or more.

Dark money

Dark money is political spending whose original funders are not publicly disclosed. The usual route runs through nonprofits organized under section 501(c)(4) of the tax code, social welfare groups. The IRS allows a 501(c)(4) to engage in some political activity as long as it is not the group's primary activity. These groups generally do not have to publish their donors.

Why disclosure is contested

The argument over disclosure does not split neatly by party, and both sides have serious backing.

• For more disclosure: voters can judge a message better when they know who paid for it, and disclosure helps enforce limits and the foreign money ban. The Supreme Court accepted the informational interest when it upheld disclosure 8 to 1 in Citizens United. In 2026 the Idaho Legislature passed Senate Joint Memorial 109, urging Congress to pass a constitutional amendment affirming states' authority to set their own campaign finance, transparency and outside-influence rules.
• For donor privacy: forced disclosure can expose donors to harassment and chill unpopular speech. In Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta (2021), the Court ruled 6 to 3 that California's blanket demand for charities' major donor lists was unconstitutional, holding that disclosure rules must be narrowly tailored to the government's interest. Groups across the spectrum have relied on this line of cases, which goes back to the civil rights era.

Where the evidence is clear, say so: disclosure laws are constitutional when properly tailored, and current law leaves some political spending without public donor lists. Whether that gap should be closed is a policy question, and the people on each side have real arguments. Know the strongest version of the side you disagree with.