The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down longstanding federal limits on how much political parties can spend in coordination with their candidates for Congress and the presidency.
For more than five decades, federal law capped the amount national political parties could spend in coordination with candidates. Depending on the office and state, those limits ranged from roughly $65,000 for House races to more than $4 million for Senate contests, while presidential campaigns were subject to much higher limits. Those restrictions have now been eliminated.
The 6-3 decision was featured in the National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission case, brought by the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the National Republican Congressional Committee, and Republican leaders, including Vice President JD Vance, who joined the lawsuit while serving as an Ohio senator.
The plaintiffs argued that federal restrictions on coordinated party spending violated the Constitution's free speech protections.
Writing for the conservative majority, Justice Brett Kavanaugh concluded that the spending caps imposed by the Federal Election Campaign Act unconstitutionally burden political speech.
He wrote that "Constitutional text, history, and precedent establish that the political-party coordinated-expenditure limits violate the First Amendment." The ruling overturns a key portion of the Supreme Court's 2001 decision in Federal Election Commission v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee, which had upheld limits on coordinated expenditures between political parties and candidates as a safeguard against corruption and circumvention of contribution limits.
The ruling builds on a series of Supreme Court decisions that have steadily removed campaign finance restrictions, including the landmark 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which allowed unlimited independent political expenditures by corporations, unions and outside groups.
Since then, super PACs have become dominant players in federal elections, often eclipsing the role of political parties themselves. Republican leaders have maintained that the previous restrictions placed political parties at a disadvantage because super PACs and other outside groups were already permitted to spend unlimited amounts independently, while parties faced tighter constraints despite being directly accountable to voters.
Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the court's three liberal justices in dissent, argued that coordinated spending between parties and candidates functions much like direct campaign contributions. She warned that "This Court has disabled one more mechanism blocking the 'grave problems of democratic legitimacy' that flow from campaign contributions."
The decision also carries immediate political implications. Republicans currently hold a significant fundraising advantage over Democrats at the national committee level, meaning the ruling could provide an additional financial boost to GOP candidates heading into competitive congressional races.
However, both parties are expected to adjust their fundraising strategies quickly now that coordinated spending limits no longer exist. Experts expect campaigns to increasingly route advertising, voter outreach, and other election activities through party committees rather than relying exclusively on super PACs. Questions also remain about whether political parties will seek additional legal advantages.
