Seven-figure political contributions are a regular feature of politics this decade, but only outside groups like super PACs are allowed to accept such large checks. Contributions to candidates and party committees are still subject to strict limits, which makes gathering the huge sums that it takes to run competitive campaigns difficult and extremely time-consuming.

For example, to raise the $11,474,077 that winning Senate candidates averaged in 2012, a candidate would need 2,207 donors to contribute the individual maximum of $5,200, which is why office-seekers are spending an ever-increasing amount of time on the phone with potential donors. Meanwhile, hundreds of other candidates, PACs and party committees are competing for the same contributors.

Fortunately for beleaguered fundraisers, there are two shortcuts: team up with other candidates or committees to solicit larger-than-usual donations and split the proceeds, or take in smaller contributions from many donors at once. Joint fundraising committees and earmarked contributions, respectively, let politicians accomplish these goals.

Joint fundraising committees are profiled in our site’s newest section, and explained as follows:

Joint fundraising committees can be created by two or more candidates, PACs or party committees to share the costs of fundraising and split the proceeds. Participants in the JFC can’t take any more money from a donor than they could if the money was given directly, but this vehicle allows a donor to write one very large check.

For example, if three candidates form a JFC, they can ask donors to write a check for $15,600 instead of $5,200, with the proceeds being split equally. Alternatively, politicians who don’t want to share their valuable donors can create a JFC for their campaign committee and their leadership PAC. Or state and national party committees can team up in a JFC to streamline their fundraising efforts. As we’ve written before, the possible combinations are endless.

Help us keep government accountable by making a donation today.

Earmarks allow a group to solicit contributions for a specific candidate or committee, essentially acting as a pass-through. This allows organizations with a large member base — EMILY’s List, J Street, and the Club for Growth are some prominent examples — to marshal hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions to a single candidate, rather than using a PAC to give a maximum of $10,000. The recipients, presumably, are grateful to both the individual donors and the earmarking organization.

The biggest conduit of all is the fundraising site ActBlue, which operates slightly differently; rather than dunning its own members for contributions, ActBlue allows Democrats and liberal organizations to create their own fundraising pages, making it much easier to gather contributions from a national small donor base. Since its founding in 2004, ActBlue has processed more than $550 million, mostly in contributions of less than $200. Conduits like ActBlue must disclose the names of the donors who earmarked the funds, so they can’t be used to “launder” contributions, but they can be a godsend to candidates who capture the affections of the “netroots” or the tea party.

JFCs and earmarks are popular with Democratic and Republican fundraisers alike, but not in equal measure. Republicans dominate the JFC scene: Through the June 30 FEC deadline, Republican JFCs reported raising $83.7 million, two-and-a-half times the $33.3 million Democrats pulled in. Far and away the biggest recipients of joint contributions are the National Republican Congressional Committee ($13.7 million) and House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio ($8.9 million), who are both beneficiaries of Boehner for Speaker, this cycle’s largest JFC. No Democratic candidate or committee has raised more than $3.5 million from JFCs.

Democrats make up the difference with earmarks, taking in $48.3 million in itemized contributions against barely $7 million for Republicans so far this cycle. And those numbers only count contributions of more than $200, so they understate the Democrats’ advantage; ActBlue alone has reported transmitting about $75 million in small contributions to candidates and committees this cycle.

The biggest recipient of earmarked donations, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, has taken in $29.8 million — more than twice what its Republican counterpart raised through JFCs. While a handful of conservative organizations, notably the Senate Conservatives Fund and the Club for Growth, use earmarks to channel money to anti-establishment Republicans, the largest Republican recipient of earmarked contributions, Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell’s unsuccessful primary challenger Matt Bevin, ranks only 13th overall.

Joint fundraising committees aren’t going out of style any time soon. The Supreme Court’s recent McCutcheon decision, which eliminated caps on the amount individuals are allowed to give to all federal candidates and committees combined per cycle, only makes JFCs more attractive. Earlier this month, the National Republican Senatorial Committee and 13 state Republican parties banded together to create Targeted State Victory, one of the largest JFCs to date; with just one check of nearly $200,000, a donor to Targeted State Victory can exceed the pre-McCutcheon maximum for a cycle. ActBlue, meanwhile, just reported raising nearly $20 million in July, its busiest-ever month save October 2012.



For permission to reprint for commercial uses, such as textbooks, contact the Center: Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics.For permission to reprint for commercial uses, such as textbooks, contact the Center: [email protected]





Support Accountability Journalism At OpenSecrets.org we offer in-depth, money-in-politics stories in the public interest. Whether you’re reading about 2020 presidential fundraising, conflicts of interest or “dark money” influence, we produce this content with a small, but dedicated team. Every donation we receive from users like you goes directly into promoting high-quality data analysis and investigative journalism that you can trust.Please support our work and keep this resource free. Thank you. Support OpenSecrets ➜