Supreme Court Strikes Down Campaign Finance Limits on Coordinated Party-Candidate Spending in 6-3 Ruling

The end of Watergate-era spending caps

The Supreme Court struck down a 1974 federal law limiting how much political parties can spend in coordination with candidates for federal office, ruling 6-3 on June 30 that the restrictions violate the First Amendmentscotusblog +1. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the majority in National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, overruled the court's own 2001 precedent and concluded that the coordinated expenditure limits impose "a severe and direct restriction on free speech" that is "disproportionate" and not "narrowly tailored" to prevent corruptionscotusblog. The decision immediately remakes the money landscape heading into the November 2026 midterm elections.

How the ruling reshapes campaign money

Political party committees can now accept donations of up to $44,300 per year — far larger than the $3,500-per-cycle limit on direct contributions to individual candidates — and spend those funds in direct coordination with the campaigns they supportpolitico. Previously, coordinated spending between candidates and party committees was capped at amounts tied to the size of the district or state. Removing those limits also gives candidates access to the lower TV advertising rates available to campaigns rather than the higher rates paid by super PACs, potentially shifting significant spending back toward the airwaves and away from outside groupspolitico. Critically, political parties, unlike super PACs, can coordinate directly with candidates — meaning Tuesday's ruling effectively gives them "the best of both worlds," in the words of NPR's analysis: unlimited fundraising combined with coordination rightsnpr.

Political fallout before the midterms

Republicans brought the case — then-Sen. J.D. Vance and the National Republican Senatorial Committee filed the lawsuit in 2022 — and are widely expected to benefit most from the rulingpolitico. The Republican National Committee has substantially outraised the Democratic National Committee in recent campaign finance reports, and the NRSC had slightly more cash on hand than the DSCC as of recent filingspolitico. President Trump hailed the decision on Truth Social: "The Supreme Court just took restrictions off political spending! A BIG WIN FOR REPUBLICANS and, more importantly, The First Amendment!"politico. In a dissent joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, Justice Elena Kagan argued the ruling "ushers in the same opportunities for quid pro quo corruption that the contribution limits were meant to check," warning that donors could now funnel as much as half a million dollars to a party to spend directly on a candidate's behalfscotusblog.