The Supreme Court struck down federal limits on coordinated campaign spending on Tuesday in a 6-3 ruling that eliminates decades-old restrictions on how much money political parties can spend working directly with candidates, a major victory for the GOP in the case National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the conservative majority, found that the restrictions violate the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause. “To uphold the political-party coordinated-expenditure limits here could therefore help consign political parties to continued second-tier status as compared to outside groups,” Kavanaugh wrote, arguing the ruling allows parties to “participate more freely and compete more fully in the political process.”
Under the law now struck down, party committees could make unlimited independent expenditures in support of a candidate—which must be done separately from the candidate’s campaign—but could not exceed limits on coordinated spending done in conjunction with a campaign. In the 2026 election cycle, party committees could spend between $65,300 and $130,600 in coordination with congressional campaigns, and between $130,600 and $4 million with Senate candidates, according to the Federal Election Commission.
The case was brought by the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the National Republican Congressional Committee, and the campaigns of two 2022 Republican candidates: Vice President JD Vance, who was then running for Senate in Ohio, and then-Rep. Steve Chabot of Ohio. The Federal Election Commission under the Trump administration sided with the challengers, while an outside lawyer appointed by the court defended the limits.
A Watergate-Era Law Under Fire
The restrictions originated in 1974 amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act, passed in the wake of the Watergate scandal. Congress enacted those sweeping reforms to regulate the financing of federal campaigns and prevent corruption. For more than 50 years, the coordinated-expenditure limits survived legal challenges, including a 2001 Supreme Court ruling that upheld them.
But the composition of the high court has shifted dramatically since 2001. The court now has a 6-3 conservative majority. In his opinion, Kavanaugh likened the 2001 precedent to “a three-legged stool where all three legs have already been knocked out,” referring to other campaign finance restrictions the court has dismantled in recent years.
This ruling extends a line of decisions starting with Citizens United v. FEC in 2010, which struck down prohibitions on political spending by corporations and paved the way for unlimited independent expenditures by outside groups known as super PACs. In 2014, the court invalidated limits on the amount of money a donor could contribute to federal candidates in a two-year election cycle. In 2022, the court struck down caps on post-election contributions that could be used to repay candidates who loaned their campaigns money.
Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented. She warned that the court’s majority has written campaign finance rules to allow circumvention of contribution limits, leaving a system “increasingly unable to stop political corruption, and thus to preserve our institutions’ democratic legitimacy.”
Republican leaders hailed the decision as a First Amendment victory. “The Supreme Court made clear that the federal government has no authority to place arbitrary limits on how political parties support the candidates they nominate,” said NRCC Chair Rep. Richard Hudson and NRSC Chair Sen. Tim Scott in a joint statement. “We are ready to fully support our candidates and put them in the strongest possible position to win in 2026 and beyond.”
Democrats called the ruling a loss for democracy. “This is a win for billionaire donors and special interests who want more influence over the GOP agenda and an invitation for corruption,” said the statement from DSCC Chair Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, DCCC Chair Rep. Suzan DelBene, and DNC Chair Ken Martin. They accused Republicans of “rewriting the rules” to “flood elections with more money from their billionaire backers.”
Sources
- CBS News — Reporting on the 6-3 ruling, Kavanaugh’s majority opinion, the 2026 coordinated spending limits, the 2022 lawsuit by Vance and Chabot, the 2001 precedent, prior campaign finance rulings, and Republican and Democratic reactions.
- NBC News — Confirming the 6-3 ruling, Kavanaugh’s authorship, Vance’s challenge, the coordinated spending limits, and the line of prior campaign finance decisions since Citizens United.
- USA Today — Reporting on the 1974 Watergate-era rule struck down by the ruling.
- CNN — Confirming the ruling struck down Watergate-era caps on coordinated party spending.
- Reuters — Reporting on the Supreme Court’s striking down of coordinated campaign spending limits.
- Federal Election Commission — Providing the specific 2026 coordinated party expenditure limits for House and Senate races.
