The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to remove limits on how much political parties can spend in partnership with candidates will provide even more flexibility in political fundraising.
The court handed down its decision Tuesday in the case Federal Election Commission (FEC) v. National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), overturning a more than 50-year-old federal election law that limits coordinated spending efforts between political parties and their candidates.
Recommended stories
list of 4 itemsend of list
Super political action committees (super PACs) are prohibited from coordinating directly with campaigns and instead spend on their own on advertising and polling efforts supporting or opposing candidates, although political parties can coordinate directly with candidates’ campaigns. Because of that adjustment, spending by political parties has historically been subject to federal election spending limits.
The court ultimately ruled that spending limits were a restriction on free speech and violated the First Amendment.
The high court ruled in favor of the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) in this case by a 6-3 vote. The court’s six conservative justices supported the NRSC’s argument, while three liberal justices voted against it.
When the case first went to court in 2022, the Federal Election Commission argued that adjusted spending was effectively the same as donating directly to a campaign. The agency said the restrictions would prevent wealthy donors from using party committees to funnel unlimited funds to candidates and help prevent corruption.
The challenge was brought by party committees representing two Republican candidates, then-Ohio Rep. Steve Chabot and then-Senate candidate J.D. Vance.
“This decision, like other campaign finance decisions since Citizens United, will inevitably make the government more sensitive to special interests and less sensitive to the demands of the American people,” Donald Sherman, president of the Washington, D.C.-based watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics, said in a statement.
Has this been attempted before?
The 1971 law was first challenged in 2001, when a Colorado court upheld the restriction. The law was challenged again in 2022.
In 2024, a federal appeals court in Cincinnati, Ohio, upheld the spending limits. The Republican committee then appealed this decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.
After Trump took office, the Federal Election Commission reversed its stance and stopped defending the law. By that point, Vance, one of the original challengers, had become vice president.
The Supreme Court subsequently allowed the law’s supporters to intervene and defend the law on the government’s behalf. Intervenors included the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which argued that spending limits should remain in place.
How will this change political spending heading into the midterm elections?
The ruling is expected to shift donations and campaign spending away from super PACs and toward political parties and their committees.
The law challenged by the National Republican Senatorial Committee would have imposed limits on the amount of money that national party committees can spend in conjunction with a candidate’s campaign, with the cap varying depending on the size of the population the candidate represents. For Senate candidates, the limit is a minimum of $127,000 for some races and a maximum of $3.9 million for races in populous states.
Parties can spend up to $127,000 in House elections, where each representative has roughly the same number of delegates.
“By eliminating the unconstitutional cap on coordinated spending, the court restored core political discourse and ensured that political parties can compete on a level playing field. We fully support our candidates and stand ready to put them in the strongest possible position to win in 2026 and beyond,” the NRSC said in a statement after the ruling.
Although there are still legal limits on donations to political parties and committees, these committees can now spend unlimited amounts in coordination with candidates’ campaigns.
In a longer analysis first obtained and published by ABC News, the NRSC acknowledged that the case would impact both political parties, but would benefit Republicans more because they outnumber Democrats.
Senate Democrats denounced the court’s decision in a statement, saying it was a “victory for billionaire donors and special interests who want more influence over the Republican agenda and attracting corruption.”
How is it different from Citizens United?
While the latest ruling does not directly impact the landmark 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, it similarly expands the role money can play in federal elections and could change the shape of its spending.
In Citizens United, the high court ruled that the government cannot restrict political spending by corporations or unions unless the spending is directly coordinated with a candidate’s political campaign.
This decision ultimately paved the way for the rise of super PACs and increased outside spending in elections. Under current federal campaign finance rules, individuals can donate $5,000 annually to traditional PACs and $3,500 to individual candidates. Unlike PACs, super PACs can accept unlimited contributions unless they are donated directly to a candidate. Instead, they fund advertising campaigns that support specific candidates. In the decade following the Citizens United decision, political spending skyrocketed.
From 2010 to 2020, super PACs spent about $3 billion on federal elections, according to an analysis by the Brennan Center for Justice. In the 2024 cycle, the 100 billionaire households accounted for $2.6 billion in election spending, according to an analysis by Americans For Tax Fairness, a think tank.
This recent decision could similarly increase the amount of money spent on elections, but it could also weaken the influence of super PACs.
Political parties can still only accept limited donations from individuals and corporations, but the cap on individual contributions is much higher for party committees than for a single candidate, and these committees can now direct unlimited funds in coordination with a candidate’s campaign. In addition to this direct coordination advantage, political parties and their candidates also have several structural advantages, such as the FCC’s requirement that broadcasters offer advertising at the lowest prices offered to commercial advertisers, an advantage not available to super PACs.
These benefits may encourage donors to maximize contributions to political party committees instead of, or in addition to, contributions to super PACs.
Federal Election Commission v. National Republican Senatorial Committee asked whether existing campaign rules that political parties impose on themselves limit how they can raise and spend money. But experts believe that a combination of these changes could further incentivize politicians to cater to special interests.
“Once again, the Supreme Court has ignored the real-world consequences of its decision to give big donors significant influence over our democracy,” Sherman added.
