what does it mean by limiting donations but not spending of candidates along with fundraising

It means there are rules on how much money a candidate or party can receive from donors , but the candidate may still be allowed to spend money on the campaign more freely, especially if it is the candidate’s own funds or spending that is not directly capped by that rule.

In plain English:

• Limiting donations = putting a cap on how much people, groups, or parties can give.
• Not limiting spending = allowing more freedom in how money is used on campaigning.
• Along with fundraising = candidates can still raise money, but the source, amount, or coordinated spending may be regulated.

Why this matters:

• Supporters can still donate, but the law may stop any one donor from giving too much.

• Candidates may still spend money they have raised, and in some cases their own personal funds, though reporting rules still apply.

• Recent court decisions have also been moving toward fewer limits on certain coordinated campaign spending, which can increase the flow of money in elections.

A simple example: a campaign might be allowed to collect donations from many people, but each donation is capped; the campaign can then spend that money on ads, staff, and events, subject to the relevant rules.

What the phrase usually implies

It usually points to a system trying to balance two things: preventing corruption or undue influence, while still protecting political speech and campaign activity. In practice, that often means donation caps are stricter than spending rules.

TL;DR

The phrase means “you can still fundraise and spend, but there are limits on who can give, how much they can give, or how some money can be coordinated with the candidate”.