Category: News Feeds

The Supreme Court struck down limits on coordinated spending between candidates and political parties on Tuesday, a win for Republicans that will fundamentally change how tens of millions of dollars are spent in congressional elections.

The decision will have an almost immediate impact on the midterms. Removing the limit on coordinated spending effectively gives candidates direct control over a far greater amount of money being spent on their races. It is also likely to increase the flood of political advertising that hits the airwaves each fall.

The 6-3 decision, which divided the court along its usual ideological lines, held that the limits violate the First Amendment.

The decision is a blow to Democrats, who argued that eliminating the limit on coordination would put more power into the hands of large donors who can cut bigger checks to party committees than to candidates. Republicans tend to get more money from large donors, while Democrats have been more reliant on small-dollar donors.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the majority, called the limits a “severe infringement on First Amendment-protected political speech.” He also argued the ruling eliminating the limits could bolster political parties generally.

“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. “Weakened political parties distort the political system.”

President Donald Trump hailed the ruling allowing parties to spend unlimited amounts in coordination with individual campaigns.

“The Supreme Court just took restrictions off political spending!” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “A BIG WIN FOR REPUBLICANS and, more importantly, The First Amendment!”

The National Republican Senatorial Committee brought the case seeking to overturn the limits in 2022 alongside now-Vice President J.D. Vance’s Senate campaign. Trump’s Justice Department declined to defend the law in court, while Democratic groups intervened to oppose the lawsuit.

“By striking down these unconstitutional caps on coordinated spending, the Court has restored core political speech and ensured parties can compete on a level playing field,” NRSC Chair Tim Scott (R-S.C.) and National Republican Congressional Committee Chair Richard Hudson (R-N.C.) said 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, who are already staring down substantial disadvantage in party fundraising this midterm cycle and are worried that the ruling will only amplify the impact of that disparity, were quick to deride the decision Tuesday.

“Today’s ruling is a win for billionaire donors and special interests who want more influence over the GOP agenda and an invitation for corruption,” Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chair Kirsten Gillibrand, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chair Suzan DelBene and Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin said in a joint statement.

The ruling strengthens the parties themselves, allowing them to directly support their preferred candidates in a way that could empower their roles in the political ecosystem — and potentially weaken the influence of super PACs. Party committees on both sides have been preparing for the possibility for months and the decision is likely to have an immediate impact on campaign spending ahead of the November midterms.

Previously, coordinated spending between candidates and party committees, such as the NRCC or the DCCC, was capped, with the specific amounts depending on the size of the district or state. Those limits no longer apply.

That significantly alters the campaign finance landscape because parties can accept far larger donations than individual candidates — $44,300 per year for national party committees compared with $3,500 per cycle for candidates. Removing the limit on coordinated spending effectively gives candidates the ability to control a far greater sum of money that is being spent on their race.

That could also substantially change the makeup of political advertising on television, because candidates get far lower rates on TV ads than other groups. If their coordinated efforts with campaigns get the similarly low rate, they would have far more cash to tap to flood the airwaves, while super PACs will still have to pay a higher rate. As a result, campaigns might spend more of their budget on TV advertising, while super PACs may be more likely to pick up other campaigning costs, such as mailers and digital advertising.

Democrats have largely had the advantage in candidate fundraising, which has generally given them a leg up in battlegrounds when candidate fundraising was the most important. But NRSC has slightly more cash on hand than the DSCC, according to recent campaign finance reports, while the Republican National Committee has wildly outraised the DNC. Those party funds could now give the GOP the financial advantage in key states.

The court’s decision additionally eliminates the need for parties to mount their own independent expenditure arms, where they have traditionally spent tens of millions of dollars.

The decision is the latest in a series of blows the high court has dealt to campaign finance regulation over the past two decades. The 2010 Citizens United and Speechnow.org decisions enabled the rise of super PACs with no limit on donations. In 2014, the court struck down aggregate limits on individual donations. And in 2022, it struck down limits on candidates using donor funds to repay personal loans they had made to their campaigns.

“Today’s decision follows a string of disastrous campaign finance rulings from the Roberts Court that began with Citizens United,” Michael Beckel, director of money-in-politics reform at Issue One, said in a statement. “By eliminating the limits that have long governed how much money parties can spend in coordination with candidates, the Supreme Court has further empowered wealthy donors and special interests with outsized influence in elections.”

​Politics