Supreme Court Strikes Down Limits on Party Campaign Spending

The Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down a federal law that had limited how much political parties can spend in coordination with congressional and presidential candidates, eliminating restrictions that had stood for more than 50 years.

Court Sides With Republican-Led Challenge

The ruling came in response to a lawsuit led by Republican congressional committees, joined by Vice President JD Vance during his time as a senator from Ohio. The court’s six conservative justices formed the majority, continuing a pattern of decisions that have steadily dismantled congressionally enacted limits on campaign fundraising and spending since the landmark 2010 Citizens United ruling opened the door to unlimited independent political spending.

Why the Spending Limits Existed

The coordinated party spending limits were originally designed to prevent wealthy donors from circumventing individual contribution caps by funneling unlimited sums through political parties, with the understanding that the money would ultimately benefit specific candidates. The Supreme Court had previously upheld these limits in a 2001 ruling.

Kavanaugh Writes for the Majority

Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored Tuesday’s opinion, arguing that the court’s earlier precedent was wrongly decided. “In short, constitutional text, history and precedent establish that the political-party coordinated-expenditure limits violate the First Amendment,” Kavanaugh wrote.

Kagan Warns of “Untold Harm” in Dissent

Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the court’s three liberal justices in dissent, warned that the ruling “ushers in untold harm” by allowing political parties to channel large contributions to individual candidates far beyond what those candidates could legally accept directly from donors.

Trump Administration Reversed Course on Defending the Law

The lawsuit was originally filed in Ohio in 2022 by Republican House and Senate campaign committees, along with then-Senator Vance and then-Representative Steve Chabot. After President Donald Trump took office for his second term, the Federal Election Commission abandoned its defense of the law and instead aligned with Republicans in urging the Supreme Court to overturn it. Democrats had pushed the court to uphold the restrictions, even as many observers acknowledged the limits had placed political parties at a disadvantage relative to outside groups capable of unlimited spending.

What the Old Limits Looked Like

Under the now-struck-down restrictions, coordinated party spending for Senate races last year ranged from $127,200 in smaller states to nearly $4 million in California, the nation’s most populous state. For House races, limits stood at $127,200 in states with a single representative and $63,600 elsewhere.

A Familiar Ideological Divide

The ruling reflects long-standing divisions between the court’s conservative and liberal wings on campaign finance law, divisions that were clearly visible during oral arguments in December. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a frequent dissenter in campaign finance cases including Citizens United, cautioned against further weakening congressional regulations. “Every time we interfere with the congressional design, we make matters worse,” she said.

Justice Samuel Alito, who was part of the Citizens United majority, defended Tuesday’s ruling as correcting an imbalance rather than creating one. He described the decision as “much maligned, I think unfairly maligned,” arguing it would “level the playing field” by extending to political parties a freedom to spend that had previously been reserved primarily for media organizations.