Historic decision reached by 6-3 vote
In the case between the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), the U.S. Supreme Court struck down federal limits on the amount political parties can spend in coordination with candidates, finding them unconstitutional under the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech.
The decision, announced on Tuesday, was reached by a 6-3 majority with the support of the court's six conservative justices. The three liberal justices dissented.
The law and parties to the case
The overturned 1971 law imposed upper limits on coordinated spending by national party committees with candidate campaigns, varying according to the population size represented by the candidate. In Senate races, the limit could be as low as $127,000 in some states and as high as $3.9 million in populous states. For House elections, the coordinated spending cap was set at $127,000 per candidate.
The case was brought by the Republican party committees that ran the campaigns of former Ohio Representative Steve Chabot and JD Vance, who would later become vice president.
FEC's change of position and intervenors
When the case was first filed in 2022, the FEC argued that coordinated spending should be treated as direct campaign contributions and that the limits were necessary to prevent wealthy donors from funneling unlimited money to candidates through party committees. However, after Donald Trump took office, the FEC changed its position and stopped defending the law.
The Supreme Court then allowed supporters of the law to intervene in the case. The Democratic National Committee (DNC), the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee argued in court that the spending limits should be upheld.
Impact of the decision on election finance
The Supreme Court's decision eliminated all legal limits on coordinated spending between political party committees and candidates. While the base individual contributions to parties and committees are still subject to legal limits, these committees can now make unlimited expenditures in coordination with candidate campaigns.
Experts predict the decision will shift the flow of donations from super PACs to political party committees. Since party committees, unlike super PACs, can coordinate directly with candidate campaigns and have structural advantages such as receiving the lowest advertising rates, this change could incentivize donors to turn to party committees.
Similarities with Citizens United
While the decision does not directly affect the landmark ruling in the 2010 Citizens United v. FEC case, which lifted restrictions on election spending by corporations and unions, it similarly gives money a greater role in elections. Following the Citizens United ruling, the rise of super PACs led to an explosion in election spending; between 2010 and 2020, super PACs spent approximately $3 billion on federal elections. In the 2024 election cycle, 100 billionaire families spent $2.6 billion on campaign expenditures.
Reactions
NRSC: "By striking down unconstitutional coordinated spending limits, the Court restored fundamental political speech and allowed parties to compete on a level playing field."
Senate Democrats: "This decision, which will allow billionaire donors and special interest groups to have more influence over the GOP agenda, is an invitation to corruption."
Donald Sherman, President of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics (CREW): "This decision, like the other campaign finance rulings since Citizens United, will inevitably make the government more responsive to private interests and indifferent to the demands of the American people."
Sherman also said, "The Supreme Court has once again ignored the real-world impact of its decision granting wealthy donors greater influence over our democracy."
