Supreme Court strikes down coordinated campaign spending limits

The Supreme Court has struck down federal limits on the amount of money political committees can spend in coordination with federal candidates, a decision that further unwinds restrictions on the flow of money into congressional campaigns just months ahead of the midterm elections. The court divided 6-3 along ideological lines in finding that the caps on what are called coordinated party expenditures violate the First Amendment.

This ruling joins a line of recent decisions from the court's conservative majority that have invalidated campaign finance limits on the grounds that they restrict political speech. In an opinion authored by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the high court's conservative majority said its decision "treats all political parties equally. It will allow all political parties, including the DNC and RNC and the respective Senate and House campaign committees, as well as other parties and party committees, to participate more freely and compete more fully in the political process, and to coordinate more closely with their candidates."

At the center of the case were limits imposed by Congress through the Federal Election Campaign Act. In the 2026 election cycle, party committees can spend between $65,300 and $130,600 in coordination with congressional campaigns, and between $130,600 and $4 million with Senate candidates, according to the FEC. Congress amended the law in 2014 to allow unlimited coordinated spending on certain activities, such as election-recount lawsuits or other legal proceedings.

In 2022, then-Senate candidate JD Vance, then-Rep. Steve Chabot of Ohio and two Republican committees filed a lawsuit challenging the spending limits as violations of the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause. A federal appeals court upheld the caps, citing a 2001 Supreme Court ruling that had left an earlier version of the limits intact. But in the 25 years since that ruling, the composition of the high court changed considerably. It now has a 6-3 conservative majority. When the dispute arrived at the high court, the FEC under the Trump administration joined with the Republicans in urging the justices to strike down the caps. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued the limits violate the First Amendment by restricting parties' right to engage in political speech in coordination with their candidates. The court appointed an outside lawyer, Roman Martinez, to argue in defense of the limits. Democratic campaign committees also urged the Supreme Court to uphold the caps.

Since 2010, the Supreme Court has issued a series of rulings knocking down campaign finance restrictions. In the landmark case Citizens United v. FEC, decided that year, the high court struck down prohibitions on political spending by corporations. Then, in 2014, the court struck down limits on the amount of money individuals could give to political parties.

“

treats all political parties equally. It will allow all political parties, including the DNC and RNC and the respective Senate and House campaign committees, as well as other parties and party committees, to participate more freely and compete more fully in the political process, and to coordinate more closely with their candidates.