Campaign Finance Bill Expands 'Coordination,' Treating Outside Spending as Candidate Money

The Stop Illegal Campaign Coordination Act is a major update to federal campaign finance law, specifically targeting the gray area where outside spending groups—think Super PACs or advocacy organizations—work closely with political campaigns without technically breaking the rules. This bill broadens the definition of what counts as a “coordinated expenditure,” which is money spent by an outside group that the law treats as if the candidate or party spent it directly, making it subject to strict contribution limits.

The New Standard: 'Materially Consistent'

Currently, campaigns and outside groups have to do a bit of a dance to avoid direct coordination. This bill makes that dance a lot harder. Under the new rules, an expenditure is considered coordinated if it is “materially consistent” with any instructions, directions, guidance, or suggestions coming from a candidate, their committee, or a political party. Critically, these instructions don't need to be public or even sent directly to the spending group. They can be communicated indirectly.

This change is aimed at closing loopholes where campaigns might use coded language or public-facing statements to signal exactly what they need outside groups to spend money on. For instance, a candidate might publicly lament that they lack the funds to run digital ads targeting suburban women in a specific county. If an outside group then runs exactly those ads, the FEC can now use this bill to argue that the spending was "materially consistent" with the candidate’s indirect guidance.

How the FEC Will Check the Receipts

To determine if spending is “materially consistent,” the Federal Election Commission (FEC) is required to consider a specific list of factors. If one or more of these factors apply, the spending is presumed to be coordinated. The FEC will look at whether the guidance suggested:

1. Targeting: Specific demographics or locations for the communication (e.g., “focus on voters aged 25-45 in the 5th district”).
2. Method: Using specific communication methods (e.g., “use social media video ads” or “direct mail”).
3. Content: Using a specific phrase, image, video, or audio that later shows up in the actual communication.

For groups that do issue advocacy or run ads that mention candidates, this raises the regulatory risk significantly. If an organization already shares the same general goals and messaging as a political party, they now have to be hyper-vigilant that their independent spending doesn't accidentally align too closely with any suggestion—even an indirect one—from the party.

The Trade-Off: Clarity vs. Control

The benefit here is transparency. For voters who are tired of seeing millions spent by groups that claim to be independent but clearly seem to be reading from the campaign’s playbook, this bill forces more of that spending under the strict limits of campaign finance law. It makes it harder for campaigns to outsource their spending to high-dollar donors.

The challenge, however, lies in the vague language. Terms like “materially consistent” and “indirectly communicated instructions” give the FEC a lot of interpretive power. This could lead to a chilling effect on legitimate independent speech. Outside groups might pull back on their advocacy simply because they fear that their messaging, which they developed independently, might later be deemed “materially consistent” with something a candidate said publicly. This level of ambiguity could lead to inconsistent enforcement, which is always tough for the groups trying to follow the rules.