Supreme Court strikes down federal limits on coordinated campaign spending by political parties

WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a major campaign finance ruling released Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down longstanding federal limits on how much political parties may spend in coordination with their own candidates, holding the restrictions violate the First Amendment in the case of National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission.

In a 6-3 decision, the Court ruled that provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) limiting coordinated expenditures by political parties are unconstitutional, overturning its own 2001 precedent in Federal Election Commission v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee (Colorado II).

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the majority, said the law unlawfully restricts political speech by preventing parties from working freely with their candidates during campaigns.

"Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech," Kavanaugh wrote, concluding that the spending restrictions directly burden the political speech protected by the First Amendment.

Chief Justice John Roberts joined Kavanaugh's opinion, along with Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett.

Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.

The decision overturns the Court's 2001 ruling that upheld limits on coordinated spending between political parties and candidates as a way to prevent corruption.

The majority concluded that subsequent Supreme Court decisions—including McCutcheon v. FEC (2014) and FEC v. Ted Cruz for Senate (2022)—have undermined the reasoning behind Colorado II, leaving it "no longer good law."

"To the extent that Colorado II has retained any vitality, it is now overruled," Kavanaugh wrote.

Federal law continues to cap direct contributions to candidates and prohibits donors from earmarking contributions through political parties to specific candidates.

The Court concluded those restrictions—combined with campaign finance disclosure requirements—already provide sufficient protection against quid pro quo corruption without restricting how parties spend money in coordination with candidates.

According to the majority, limits on coordinated expenditures amount to an unnecessary "fourth line of defense" that disproportionately burdens political speech protected by the First Amendment.

Decision could reshape campaign strategy

The ruling allows national, state and local political party committees to coordinate campaign spending with candidates without being subject to the federal expenditure caps previously imposed by FECA.

The Court said the decision places political parties on more equal footing with outside organizations such as Super PACs, which have been allowed to spend unlimited amounts independently following previous campaign finance decisions.

Kavanaugh wrote that political parties have become comparatively weaker over the past two decades while outside political groups have gained influence, arguing the previous restrictions contributed to that imbalance.

Dissent warns of corruption

Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, argued the majority dismantled an important safeguard against corruption.

The dissent maintained that coordinated expenditures effectively allow political parties to pay campaign expenses on behalf of candidates and warned removing the limits increases the risk that donors could circumvent federal contribution caps through party committees.

The lawsuit was brought by the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the National Republican Congressional Committee, then-Senate candidate JD Vance and others, who argued the coordinated expenditure limits violated the First Amendment.

The Court found the case remained justiciable because Vice President JD Vance still maintains an active statement of candidacy for a potential 2028 Senate campaign and an active campaign committee with the Federal Election Commission.