A major Supreme Court case could upend how money flows into federal elections, and Georgia may feel the first impact.

Republican Party committees are asking the Court to strike down a longstanding limit on how much political parties can coordinate their spending with candidates. If the justices side with them, experts say it would create new pathways for wealthy donors to steer massive checks into individual battleground races — including in Georgia, one of the country's most competitive political states.

"It would open the floodgates for the biggest donors across the country to funnel money through the parties into specific Senate or House races," said Eric Petry, counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice. "That problem would get even worse in places like Georgia." 

The Supreme Court heard arguments this week.

What's at stake: millions in earmarked political spending

Under current federal rules, parties can assist their candidates but only up to capped limits designed to prevent corruption and donor influence.

If those caps disappear, Petry says a single donor could write a check for over $1 million and effectively tell a national party to direct it toward a specific candidate.

"That poses really significant corruption risks," he said. 

Critics warn that political parties could become conduits for wealthy funders seeking to maximize influence in targeted states, especially fast-changing battlegrounds like Georgia.

Why Georgia could become ground zero

Georgia's U.S. Senate races routinely draw national attention and tens of millions of dollars in outside spending. Metro Atlanta's rapid political shifts — and fierce competition statewide — make the state an attractive target for national donors.

Already, Georgia saw historic spending in judicial elections last year, with outside groups pouring money into state Supreme Court contests. Weakening federal guardrails could accelerate that trend.

"We already see big donors funneling tens or hundreds of millions into Super PACs," Petry said. "If they can now funnel money through political parties — and have that money directly coordinate with candidates — that's a very real concern." 

Such a ruling could also intensify power struggles within Georgia politics. Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger recently criticized the state's campaign laws, saying current limits give Lt. Gov. Burt Jones an advantage as both eye the 2026 governor's race.

Though not weighing in on the Raffensperger dispute directly, Petry said candidates nationwide are "pushing the envelope" to find ways around weak or uneven finance rules, especially as federal regulators remain gridlocked. 

A broader crisis of trust in elections

Public concern over the influence of money in politics has never been higher. Large bipartisan majorities — often 70% to 80% of Americans — say wealthy donors have too much sway over elected officials, according to polls cited in the Brennan Center analysis.

Petry said a sweeping deregulatory ruling from the Court could deepen that divide.

"If the biggest donors exert even more influence than they currently do, I would expect public confidence in the campaign finance system to continue to decrease," he said. 

But paradoxically, he added, public frustration might also fuel a renewed push for reforms such as transparency rules or public financing. 

Could Congress step in? Not anytime soon.

Even if the Court strikes down the limits, Petry says change isn't likely to come quickly.

"Realistically, there's not much chance of legislative action before the 2026 midterms," he said. "Congress has shown that it doesn't move quickly — if it moves at all — in this area." 

He argues that the only long-term fix may be a constitutional amendment allowing lawmakers to fully regulate campaign spending — something the Brennan Center says has broad public support.

A ruling that could rival Citizens United

If the justices side with the challengers, legal experts say it could become the most consequential campaign finance ruling since Citizens United, the 2010 decision that unleashed unlimited outside spending.

For Georgia — where elections are increasingly decided by razor-thin margins — the consequences could be immediate and far-reaching.