WASHINGTON, D.C.—In a 6-3 ruling that directly impacts the six authorized national party committees of the two major parties — the Republican National Committee, Democratic National Committee, National Republican Senatorial Committee, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, National Republican Congressional Committee and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee — along with their candidates for federal office, the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday, June 30, struck down long-standing federal limits on coordinated campaign spending by political parties, ruling that those restrictions violate the First Amendment.
“The Supreme Court today made a corrupt campaign finance system even worse. The Court struck down limits on the coordination between candidates and political parties, giving billionaires even more power,” wrote Senator Bernie Sanders (D-VT). “Billionaires buying elections is not democracy. It’s Oligarchy.”
For the decision in National Republican Senatorial Committee et al. v. Federal Election Commission et al. (No. 24-621), Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett. Justice Elena Kagan filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
“To sum up: In light of the other meaningful prophylactic measures available to the Government, and given the severe infringement on First Amendment-protected political speech that ensues from limiting a political party’s spending in support of its candidates, we conclude that the political-party coordinated-expenditure limits are “disproportionate” and are not “necessary” and “narrowly tailored” for the circumvention interest it seeks to protect. McCutcheon, 572 U. S., at 199, 218, 220 (quotation marks omitted); Cruz, 596 U. S., at 306,” Justice Kavanaugh wrote.
The Court held that provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), specifically 52 U.S.C. §30116(d), which cap the amounts national party committees may spend in coordination with federal candidates, are unconstitutional. The ruling overrules the Court’s 2001 decision in Federal Election Commission v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee (Colorado II), 533 U.S. 431, to the extent that precedent retained any vitality.
“The Supreme Court just took restrictions off political spending! A BIG WIN FOR REPUBLICANS and, more importantly, The First Amendment,” President Donald J Trump wrote on Truth Social applauding the ruling.
The case originated in 2022 when the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the National Republican Congressional Committee, then-Senator J.D. Vance and then-Representative Steve Chabot sued the Federal Election Commission and its commissioners. They argued that the coordinated-expenditure limits abridge core political speech protected by the First Amendment. The en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld the limits, relying on Colorado II. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and heard argument on Dec. 9, 2025.
The Court applied “closely drawn” scrutiny, the standard for reviewing limits on contributions and analogous coordinated spending. Under this rigorous review — sharpened in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, 572 U.S. 185 (2014), and Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate, 596 U.S. 289 (2022) — a regulation must not be disproportionate and must be necessary and narrowly tailored to a sufficiently important governmental interest.
The only interest the Court has recognized as justifying campaign-finance restrictions is preventing quid pro quo corruption or its appearance. The primary justification offered for the party coordinated-expenditure limits had been preventing circumvention of base contribution limits to candidates through large, earmarked donations to parties. The majority of the court found this rationale insufficient under current doctrine and concluded that the combination of base contribution limits, earmarking rules and disclosure requirements adequately serves the government’s anti-circumvention interest “without unduly restricting core political party speech.” The coordinated-expenditure caps are therefore “disproportionate” and not “necessary” or “narrowly tailored.”
Parties may now align spending more closely with candidate campaigns on advertising, strategy and voter outreach, potentially producing more unified messaging and efficient resource allocation in federal elections. Critics, including the dissent, warned that removing the caps could facilitate circumvention of candidate contribution limits through party conduits, increasing risks of quid pro quo corruption despite existing safeguards.
“But today, the Court rewrites the rules, to allow circumvention of the contribution limits,” Justice Kagen, providing the dissenting opinion wrote. “The majority invalidates Congress’s restriction of coordinated expenditures, thus enabling a party to serve as an alternative checking account for a campaign. As a result, a donor will be able to give a party as much as half a million dollars (as compared to the $7,000 he can give directly to the candidate) to cover the candidate’s bills. And the candidate can seek just such a donation.”
In Washington state, the ruling applies uniformly to all federal elections. National party committees may now coordinate unlimited expenditures with candidates seeking the state’s U.S. Senate seats and its 10 House districts.
Author: Mario Lotmore
