Supreme Court ends party coordination limits for federal races

The U.S. Supreme Court struck down more than 50-year limits on how political parties can coordinate spending with candidates for Congress and president, overturning federal law after a Republican-led challenge. The decision, written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh

On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court erased limits on how much political parties can spend in coordination with candidates for Congress and president—an abrupt shift after a law that had been on the books for more than 50 years.

For voters watching from afar. the decision lands in the middle of something they already feel in real life: the sense that money has stretched farther than ever in federal elections. The court’s latest move was prompted by a Republican-led lawsuit. and it carried the signature of Vice President JD Vance. who was named as part of the challenge when he was a senator from Ohio.

The case matters because the limits were designed to close a specific loophole. The goal was to stop large donors from skirting caps on individual contributions to a candidate—by directing unlimited sums to a political party with the understanding that the money would be spent on behalf of the candidate.

The Supreme Court had previously upheld the limits in 2001. But Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the court, said the earlier ruling was wrong and should be overruled. In his view. “In short. constitutional text. history and precedent establish that the political-party coordinated-expenditure limits violate the First Amendment. ” a message that signals the court’s willingness to treat coordination rules as constitutionally out of bounds.

Kavanaugh’s decision also draws a line back to the court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling. which opened the door to unlimited independent spending in federal elections. With Tuesday’s ruling. the question becomes less about independent spending and more about coordination—how money flows when a party and a candidate are moving together.

Justice Elena Kagan’s dissent came from the opposite direction. For the three liberal justices. the court’s ruling “ushers in untold harm.” Kagan warned that it would enable parties to funnel large contributions to individual candidates—far in excess of what donors can give those candidates directly.

The legal change doesn’t land in a vacuum. It also comes with immediate political arithmetic. The decision is likely to give Republicans at least a short-term boost because they maintain a sizable cash advantage over Democrats.

The Republican National Committee reported having more than $125 million to spend—its highest-ever cash on hand total—according to its most recent Federal Election Commission filing in May. The National Republican Senatorial Committee had more than $48 million on hand. and the National Republican Congressional Committee had more than $81 million.

By comparison, the Democratic National Committee had $14.4 million on hand in its most recent report. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee had roughly $37 million, while the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee had roughly $73 million.

The timing of the lawsuit also shows how hard the parties have been fighting over campaign finance rules. The Republican committees for House and Senate candidates filed the lawsuit in Ohio in 2022, joined by Vance—then a senator from Ohio—and then-Rep. Steve Chabot.

After President Donald Trump took office for his second term, the Federal Election Commission dropped its defense of the law and joined with Republicans in urging that it be overturned.

Democrats. however. had argued for keeping the law in place. even though there is wide agreement that the spending limits have hurt political parties in an era of unlimited spending by other organizations. The heart of their case was that coordinated spending rules exist for a reason: to prevent the effects of donor caps from being erased by party intermediaries.

Even the numbers from last year show why the debate can’t be dismissed as abstract. For Senate races. coordinated party spending ranged from $127. 200 in several states with small populations to nearly $4 million in California. the most populous state. For House races, the limits were $127,200 in states with only one representative and $63,600 everywhere else.

When the court heard arguments in December. the split between liberal and conservative justices over campaign finance restrictions was on full display. Justice Sonia Sotomayor. a dissenter in Citizens United and the court’s other campaign money cases. said. “Every time we interfere with the congressional design. we make matters worse.”.

Justice Samuel Alito, by contrast, described the decision as “much maligned, I think unfairly maligned.” He said the effect was to “level the playing field,” expanding the right to spend freely that had previously belonged only to media companies.

By Tuesday evening. the coordinates for federal campaigns were changed again: the Supreme Court’s ruling removed the federal limits on party coordination that had been part of the landscape since before most modern campaign finance rules were even fully formed. What comes next will unfold through funding decisions inside national party headquarters—decisions that. in the court’s own framing. will now be able to move with candidates rather than around them.

U.S. Supreme Court party spending coordinated expenditure limits federal elections First Amendment JD Vance Brett Kavanaugh Elena Kagan campaign finance