The Supreme Court Strikes Down Limits on Party-Candidate Coordinated Spending
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Tuesday to invalidate federal limits on coordinated spending between national political party committees and their candidates. The decision, authored by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, held that the restrictions violate the First Amendment's free speech protections. The ruling overturns a 2001 Supreme Court precedent and continues a broader trend of deregulating campaign finance.
Ruling and Legal Basis
The court struck down provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974 that limited the amount of money national political parties could spend in coordination with their candidates.
Justice Kavanaugh wrote for the majority that "constitutional text, history and precedent establish that the political-party coordinated-expenditure limits violate the First Amendment." The court overruled its 2001 decision in FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee, which had upheld similar limits.
"Constitutional text, history and precedent establish that the political-party coordinated-expenditure limits violate the First Amendment."
— Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the majority
Case Background
The lawsuit was brought by the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the National Republican Congressional Committee, and two 2022 candidates: then-Senate candidate JD Vance and then-Representative Steve Chabot.
President Donald Trump's Justice Department and the Federal Election Commission (FEC) sided with the challengers. The FEC had initially defended the law but changed its position after the Trump administration took office.
Dissenting Opinion
Justice Elena Kagan authored a dissent joined by the court's three liberal justices. Kagan wrote that the ruling "ushers in untold harm" and argued it would enable large contributions to candidates.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor remarked during oral arguments: "Every time we interfere with the congressional design, we make matters worse."
"Every time we interfere with the congressional design, we make matters worse."
— Justice Sonia Sotomayor, during oral arguments
Previous Regulations and Impact
Under the overturned rules, political parties could make unlimited independent expenditures separate from campaigns but faced caps on coordinated spending—such as hiring venues or fundraising consultants. Limits varied by election: up to nearly $4 million for Senate races and $127,000 for at-large House seats.
The ruling allows national parties to directly contribute more to candidates' campaigns. Under previous law, other entities such as Super PACs and political action committees could raise and spend unlimited funds but could not coordinate directly with candidates. Parties now have both the ability to raise unlimited funds and coordinate their spending.
Implications
The practical effect of the ruling is unclear. Supporters of the original limits argued they aimed to prevent corruption or its appearance. Critics of the limits contend the caps have had marginal effect given the increased spending since the Citizens United decision in 2010.
The decision is expected to benefit Republicans in the short term, as their party committees hold a cash advantage over Democrats. As of May, the Republican National Committee reported over $125 million on hand, compared to the Democratic National Committee's $14.4 million.
Broader Context
The ruling continues a trend of the court's conservative majority scaling back campaign finance restrictions. This includes:
- The 2010 Citizens United decision, allowing unlimited corporate and union independent spending on elections
- A 2011 ruling, striking down Arizona's public election financing system
- A 2014 decision, removing aggregate limits on individual campaign donations