US Supreme Court strikes down limits on coordinated party campaign spending ahead of midterms
The Supreme Court on Tuesday threw out federal limits on how much political parties can spend in coordination with their candidates, a 6-3 decision that overturns a 2001 precedent and hands Republicans a significant cash advantage heading into the November midterms.
The ruling
On the final day of its term, the US Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that caps on coordinated party expenditures violate the First Amendment's free speech guarantees. The decision in NRSC v. FEC struck down a provision of the 1971 Federal Election Campaign Act that had restricted spending when parties and candidates worked together. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, writing for the conservative majority, said the ruling would allow parties to participate more freely and compete more fully in the political process, and to coordinate more closely with their candidates.
to participate more freely and compete more fully in the political process, and to coordinate more closely with their candidates.
The three liberal justices dissented. The court overturned its own 2001 precedent from Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. FEC, which had upheld the limits 5-4. The current court said shifts in campaign finance jurisprudence over the intervening decades had eroded the rationale for that ruling.
The cash advantage
The three main Republican committees ended May with $256 million in cash and no debt, more than double the approximately $126 million held by their Democratic counterparts, who also carried over $18 million in debt. Because parties can now transfer unlimited sums to candidates, and party committees pay lower ad rates than super PACs, the GOP stands to benefit more immediately. The White House backing traditionally aids fundraising, but Democrats will have time to adjust before Election Day.
- Republican committees
- 256000000 USD
- Democratic committees
- 126000000 USD
What doesn't change
The decision does not alter individual contribution limits ($44,300 per year to a national party committee, $3,500 per election to a candidate) or disclosure requirements. Super PACs can still accept unlimited donations but remain barred from coordinating with campaigns and often pay higher ad rates. The ruling also does not allow donors to earmark which candidates receive their party gifts.
Background and legal challenge
The lawsuit was filed in 2022 by then-Ohio Senate candidate JD Vance, now vice president, former congressman Steve Chabot, and two Republican committees. They argued the coordinated spending cap violated free speech rights. A federal appeals court upheld the limits in 2024, and the Federal Election Commission, under the Trump administration, declined to defend the provision, prompting the Supreme Court to appoint attorney Roman Martinez to argue in its defense. Democratic campaign committees intervened to support the law.
- JD Vance, Steve Chabot and Republican committees file lawsuit challenging limits on coordinated party expenditures.
- The US 6th Circuit Court of Appeals upholds the spending caps.
- Supreme Court strikes down the limits in a 6-3 decision, overturning the 2001 Colorado precedent.
The ruling continues a trend of the Roberts court chipping away at campaign finance restrictions, following decisions like Citizens United v. FEC (2010) that struck down limits on independent corporate and union spending. With party committees now free to coordinate unlimited spending, the midterm advertising landscape is set to change sharply.
