Nearly everything on this site is legal. These are the laws that make it so.
Every dollar we track moved under rules written by Congress, the courts and federal agencies. Here are 15 of them: what each allows, where you can see it on this site, the gap it leaves, and the main options to close it with the strongest case against each.
$3.97B
Outside spending on 2026 races
by the 294 outside groups we track
307
FEC cases waiting
a record, Sept. 2026; no quorum to act since May 1, 2025
0
Times march-in has been used
on any federally funded patent, since 1980
Options, not positionsWe describe what the law allows and lay out reform options that have been proposed, with the strongest argument against each. We do not endorse or oppose any bill or candidate. Status lines were checked on November 9, 2026.
Campaign money
Why a few donors can spend without limit, and why voters often learn who they were only after the votes are counted.
1. Buckley v. Valeo, 1976
Spending is speech; giving can be capped
The rule
The Supreme Court held that limits on what a campaign or a person spends restrict speech and struck them down, but let Congress cap what anyone gives to a candidate, to prevent corruption or its appearance (Buckley). Today a PAC may give a candidate $5,000 per election (52 U.S.C. 30116).
What it allows
Candidates may spend unlimited sums of their own money, and corporate and trade-group PACs may give to every member who writes the rules for their industry, within the per-candidate cap.
The gap: The cap is per candidate, not per industry. A company PAC can give the maximum to hundreds of members at once, and nothing limits the total.
▸Options to close it, and the case against (2)
Option: Public matching of small donations, so candidates can run on many small gifts instead of PAC checks.
Strongest case against: It spends tax money on campaigns, including ones a given taxpayer opposes.
Option: Lower PAC limits, or a ban on PAC gifts from companies that lobby.
Strongest case against: Buckley protects giving as association, and the Court has struck down limits set so low that challengers cannot run effective campaigns (Randall v. Sorrell).
2. Citizens United v. FEC and SpeechNow.org v. FEC, 2010
Unlimited money, if it stays “independent”
The rule
Corporations and unions may spend unlimited sums on election ads made without coordinating with a candidate (Citizens United). Two months later a federal appeals court held that groups doing only such spending may also raise unlimited sums (SpeechNow), and the FEC confirmed it (AO 2010-11). Those groups are super PACs.
What it allows
The 294 outside groups we track reported $3.97B in spending on 2026 federal races. In 2024, the Brennan Center found that 10 donors supplied about 44 percent ($481 million) of the money raised to support Donald Trump (Brennan Center).
The gap: The ruling rests on the spending being independent of the candidate. Whether it is depends on the FEC's coordination rules, and the FEC cannot currently enforce them (rule 6).
▸Options to close it, and the case against (2)
Option: A constitutional amendment letting Congress and states limit election spending.
Strongest case against: The Court's majority held that government may not suppress political speech based on the speaker's corporate identity. An amendment would let incumbents limit the groups that criticize them.
Option: Stricter coordination rules, such as treating a super PAC run by a candidate's former staff as coordinated.
Strongest case against: It restricts who may speak because of their past jobs, and it would be hard to enforce without policing ordinary political friendships.
3. 26 U.S.C. 6104 and Treasury rules, 2018 to 2020
Nonprofits that never name their donors
The rule
A 501(c)(4) “social welfare” group may spend on elections as long as politics is not its primary activity (26 CFR 1.501(c)(4)-1). Its public tax returns leave out donor names (26 U.S.C. 6104(d)(3)(A)), and since Treasury's 2018 guidance and 2020 final rule it no longer reports donor names even to the IRS (Nonprofit Law Blog, Venable).
What it allows
A nonprofit can give millions to a super PAC. The super PAC reports the nonprofit as its donor, and the trail ends there. The Brennan Center counted at least $1 billion from anonymous sources directed to independent groups in 2024 (Brennan Center).
The gap: Where a money chain reaches a 501(c)(4) or a (c)(6) trade group, no public record names the people behind it. That is where most of our chains end.
▸Options to close it, and the case against (2)
Option: Require groups that spend above a set amount on elections to name donors above a threshold, as the DISCLOSE Act proposals in Congress would.
Strongest case against: The Supreme Court has protected donor privacy since Alabama tried to force the NAACP to hand over its member lists (NAACP v. Alabama), and in 2021 it struck down California's rule collecting nonprofit donor lists (AFP Foundation v. Bonta).
Option: Tighter IRS limits on how much election spending a 501(c)(4) may do.
Strongest case against: It puts a tax agency in charge of judging what counts as political speech.
Giving in someone else's name is a crime (52 U.S.C. 30122), and an LLC taxed as a partnership must tell the recipient which members its gift is attributed to (11 CFR 110.1(g)). But a new LLC can still appear on a super PAC's report as the only donor, and since March 2025 domestic companies no longer have to report their real owners to the Treasury (FinCEN rule).
What it allows
In a 2026 House primary, Kentucky 4th PAC spent about $6.7 million; its only reported funder was an LLC formed three days before the PAC registered. The Campaign Legal Center has filed a complaint alleging a straw donor; the FEC has not ruled (CLC).
The gap: The ban exists, but proving who paid needs an investigation, and with no FEC quorum (below) no investigation can open.
▸Options to close it, and the case against (1)
Option: Require an LLC that gives to a political committee to name the people who own and fund it.
Strongest case against: It adds paperwork for ordinary businesses, and the straw-donor ban already makes the abuse illegal; the problem is enforcement, not the rule.
Committees report donors on a fixed calendar. For the Nov. 3, 2026 election, the last report before the vote covered money only through Oct. 14; the next one, covering Oct. 15 to Nov. 23, is due Dec. 3 (FEC, Open Magazine). The 24- and 48-hour reports filed in the final weeks list spending, not donors (52 U.S.C. 30104).
What it allows
A “pop-up” super PAC formed after the cutoff can spend in the last weeks and name its donors after the election. In the Illinois primary in March 2026, three such groups named their donors only after the vote (The Intercept). One group in the general election registered Oct. 15, so its first donor report is due Dec. 3 (Open Magazine).
The gap: Voters see who ran the late ads but not who paid for them until weeks after the result.
▸Options to close it, and the case against (1)
Option: Report large contributions within 48 hours during the last month before an election, and keep new committees on their first filing schedule. The Campaign Legal Center petitioned the FEC for this in 2019; the FEC has not acted (CLC).
Strongest case against: Faster deadlines add cost and errors for small, volunteer-run committees, while large groups with lawyers adapt.
A referee that needs four votes, and has two members
The rule
The FEC has six seats, no more than three per party, and needs four votes to open an investigation, issue a penalty, answer an advisory request or write a rule (52 U.S.C. 30106). It has lacked a quorum since May 1, 2025 and has two commissioners. Two nominees named on Feb. 11, 2026 had no confirmation hearing as of mid-September (Washington Sun).
What it allows
As of mid-September, the FEC had not been able to open a case or issue a penalty at any point in the 2026 campaign, and its enforcement backlog had doubled in a year to 307 cases (Public Citizen, Washington Sun).
The gap: Even with a quorum, the even split lets three commissioners of one party block any case. Without one, nothing moves at all.
▸Options to close it, and the case against (2)
Option: An odd number of commissioners, or letting the general counsel proceed when the commission deadlocks.
Strongest case against: The 3–3 design exists so that one party cannot use the agency to police the other's political speech. A tiebreaker invites exactly that.
Option: Let private parties sue sooner when the FEC fails to act.
Strongest case against: It moves enforcement to whoever can afford lawyers and invites lawsuits timed to elections.
Parties may now spend without limit alongside candidates
The rule
In a 6–3 ruling written by Justice Kavanaugh, the Court struck down federal limits on what party committees may spend in coordination with their candidates. For 2026 those limits had been $65,300 to $130,600 in House races and $130,600 to $4 million in Senate races (SCOTUSblog, CBS News).
What it allows
In dissent, Justice Kagan wrote that a donor will be able to give a party as much as half a million dollars to cover a candidate's bills, against $7,000 given directly (SCOTUSblog). The majority wrote that no evidence of corruption through that route had materialized.
The gap: The base limit on giving to a candidate still applies, but a large gift to a party can now be spent in direct coordination with that candidate.
▸Options to close it, and the case against (1)
Option: Stricter rules against earmarking party gifts for a named candidate (11 CFR 110.6).
Strongest case against: The Court found the circumvention risk unproven; new limits on parties would face the same First Amendment test and likely fail.
8. Bellotti, 1978; Citizens Against Rent Control v. Berkeley, 1981
No limits on ballot-measure money
The rule
Companies may spend on ballot measures (Bellotti), and no one may limit gifts to ballot-measure committees, because there is no candidate to corrupt (Berkeley). The FEC has also found that the federal ban on foreign money covers candidate elections, not ballot measures; eight states have their own bans (Ballotpedia).
What it allows
California's 14 measures in 2026 drew $773M; the largest donor committee, Building a Better California, put in $393M.
The gap: One donor can fund a statewide law campaign alone, and foreign nationals may give in most states.
▸Options to close it, and the case against (1)
Option: State bans on foreign money in ballot campaigns, and naming top funders on ads.
Strongest case against: On-ad funder lists name the committee, which may itself be a pass-through, and broad bans can sweep in lawful permanent residents and U.S. subsidiaries.
What a company that is paid by the government may do to influence it, and what it has to report.
9. 52 U.S.C. 30119; Wagner v. FEC, 2015
Contractors may not give. Their PACs and executives may.
The rule
A company or person holding a federal contract may not contribute to federal candidates or parties (52 U.S.C. 30119), and an appeals court upheld the ban (Wagner). But the same law lets the company run a PAC funded by its staff, and its employees, executives included, may give from their own pockets (11 CFR 115.6).
What it allows
Of the 1,000 biggest federal contractors, 44% lobby Congress, and they hold 72% of the contract dollars.
The gap: The ban stops the company's treasury but not the company's PAC, which carries its name and is run by its managers.
▸Options to close it, and the case against (1)
Option: A pay-to-play rule like the one for investment advisers who manage public pensions, which bars them from being paid for two years after their executives give to the officials who hire them (SEC rule).
Strongest case against: Employees have their own right to give. Penalizing a company for its staff's personal gifts punishes speech by people who are not party to the contract.
10. Lobbying Disclosure Act, 2 U.S.C. 1601 and following
Who counts as a lobbyist
The rule
A firm registers only if it earns more than $3,500 a quarter from a client; a company lobbying with its own staff, only above $16,000. A person counts as a lobbyist only if lobbying is 20 percent or more of their time for that client over three months (LDA guidance, 2 U.S.C. 1602). Reports list issues and agencies, not which official was contacted.
What it allows
Advisers who plan a campaign but spend less than a fifth of their time on contacts never register. Quarterly totals cannot be split by bill, which is why our lobbying pages never say how much was spent on one bill.
The gap: Strategy and “government relations” work below the 20 percent line is legal and unreported.
▸Options to close it, and the case against (1)
Option: Drop the 20 percent test, and report each meeting with the name of the official contacted.
Strongest case against: Petitioning the government is a First Amendment right. Lower thresholds would push small nonprofits and local groups into paperwork built for K Street.
Former senators may not lobby Congress for two years; former House members and most staff, for one (18 U.S.C. 207). The law bars contacts and appearances, not advice given behind the scenes. A pledge that kept executive appointees from lobbying their old agencies for two years was revoked in January 2025 (90 FR 8237).
What it allows
We found 2,397 registered lobbyists who list a past government job, including 49 former members of Congress.
What members of Congress must tell the public about their money and their families'.
12. STOCK Act, 2012
Members may trade stocks; they must report within 45 days
The rule
Members must disclose stock, bond and crypto trades by themselves and their spouses within 45 days, in value ranges, not exact amounts (STOCK Act). Penalties for late filing start at $200 (Washington Sun).
What it allows
We read 12,951 House trades from members' own reports. Reporters found members of both parties filing months or years late in the past year (Washington Sun).
The gap: Trading is legal; the law requires only reporting, and the late fee is small next to the trades.
▸Options to close it, and the case against (1)
Option: Ban members, spouses and dependent children from buying individual stocks. The House passed such a bill, H.R. 7008, 232 to 198 on July 22, 2026; a Senate vote to start debate failed 53 to 47 on Sept. 30 (Independent Center, bill text). The House bill also carries an unrelated voter ID section.
Strongest case against: It deters people with savings from running, intrudes on spouses' own careers, and blind trusts are hard to keep truly blind.
A member must list the source of a spouse's earned income over $1,000, but not the amount, except for honoraria (House Form A, 5 U.S.C. 13104). The rules reach a spouse and dependent children; nothing requires reporting the pay of adult children, siblings or parents.
What it allows
In the House reports we read, 2 members reported a spouse's salary from one of the biggest federal contractors. The reports do not say how much.
Why Medicare pays what it pays for drugs that public money helped invent.
14. Bayh-Dole Act, 35 U.S.C. 200 and following
Public research, private patents
The rule
Universities and companies may patent inventions made with federal grants. The government keeps a right to “march in” and license a patent to others in limited cases (35 U.S.C. 203). Agencies have never used it, and turned down all of about a dozen requests; a 2023 draft letting price count was not final as of December 2025 (GAO).
What it allows
Medicare spent $55.00B on 79 drugs built on public research that we track.
The gap: The public pays for the research and then pays the price set by the patent holder.
▸Options to close it, and the case against (1)
Option: Finalize guidance that lets price be a reason to march in.
Strongest case against: Universities warned it would scare off the companies that turn lab results into products, and GAO noted it would likely touch few drugs because most drug patents are not Bayh-Dole patents (GAO).
Medicare negotiates a few drugs, years after launch
The rule
From 2003, the law barred Medicare itself from negotiating Part D drug prices; private drug plans negotiated instead (42 U.S.C. 1395w-111(i)). The 2022 Inflation Reduction Act opened an exception: 15 more drugs get negotiated prices in 2027, which CMS says are 44 percent below 2024 net prices (KFF). A 2025 law widened the exemption for drugs for rare diseases (Fierce Healthcare).
What it allows
Most drugs Medicare buys are still priced by the maker, and new drugs are not eligible for years after they launch.
The gap: Negotiation reaches a few dozen drugs out of thousands.
▸Options to close it, and the case against (1)
Option: More drugs negotiated each year, or sooner after launch.
Strongest case against: Lower expected prices mean less money for new research. The CBO estimated the 2022 law would lead to about 13 fewer new drugs over 30 years, out of about 1,300 (CBO).
One line each. Tap a rule above for the sources and the case against.
1. Spending is speech; giving can be cappedThe cap is per candidate, not per industry. A company PAC can give the maximum to hundreds of members at once, and nothing limits the total.
2. Unlimited money, if it stays “independent”The ruling rests on the spending being independent of the candidate. Whether it is depends on the FEC's coordination rules, and the FEC cannot currently enforce them (rule 6).
3. Nonprofits that never name their donorsWhere a money chain reaches a 501(c)(4) or a (c)(6) trade group, no public record names the people behind it. That is where most of our chains end.
4. LLCs as donorsThe ban exists, but proving who paid needs an investigation, and with no FEC quorum (below) no investigation can open.
5. The reporting calendarVoters see who ran the late ads but not who paid for them until weeks after the result.
10. Who counts as a lobbyistStrategy and “government relations” work below the 20 percent line is legal and unreported.
11. The revolving doorA former member can advise a lobbying campaign aimed at their old colleagues on day one, as long as someone else makes the calls.
Legal texts link to the official code, regulation or opinion; status lines link to the reporting they rely on. Readers can find statutes at Cornell's Legal Information Institute and court rulings at Justia. This page is not legal advice. Spotted an error? Tell us. See also our method.