SCOTUS shatters party-candidate spending limits for GOP 

WASHINGTON (CN) — With midterm elections approaching, the Supreme Court notched a victory for Republicans on Tuesday, striking down restrictions on campaign spending between political parties and candidates.

In a 6-3 opinion, the high court ruled that the Federal Election Campaign Act’s limits on such coordinated spending violated the First Amendment by impairing a party’s traditional forms of communications, such as advertising, and harms a party’s ability to “amplify the voices of their adherents.”

Justice Brett Kavanaugh — joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett — wrote the majority opinion and said Tuesday’s decision brought the law back in line with the nation’s first 200 years of history before the 1976 statute, also known as FECA.

“Importantly, by holding FECA’s political-party coordinated-expenditure restrictions unconstitutional, the court’s decision today treats all political parties equally,” the Donald Trump appointee wrote. “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.”

FECA sets limits on donations to political candidates to counter quid pro quo corruption. This includes cash payments and expenditure contributions such as payments directly for advertisements.

“Whether the Democratic Party, the Republican Party or other parties, all political parties and their candidates going forward can compete equally under the same rules regarding coordinated expenditures and can structure their fundraising, spending and political speech on a level playing field as they see fit within the law,” Kavanaugh added.

The Republican challenge to campaign finance regulations aimed at inhibiting quid pro quo corruption originated during Vice President JD Vance’s 2022 Senate campaign. Joined by two GOP committees and former Representative Steve Chabot, Vance claimed contribution limits on coordinated campaign spending between political parties and candidates were unconstitutional.

The challenge targeted a 1974 amendment to the Federal Election Campaign Act that places several limits political party committees can receive and spend on advertising in federal elections.

The limits varied based on voting-age population in each congressional election, but can reach $4 million for Senate races and $127,000 for elections in the House of Representatives.

In his petition, Vance urged the court to overturn an en banc Sixth Circuit decision that upheld the spending-limit provision on the ground that it was required to under Supreme Court precedent in FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee, a 5-4 2001 decision commonly referred to as Colorado II.

Kavanaugh agreed, noting the “significant changes” in the court’s First Amendment campaign finance jurisprudence in the 25 years since.

Since the Supreme Court’s landmark Citizens United v. FEC decision in 2010, independent expenditure-only political action committees, better known as super PACs, have allowed wealthy individuals to contribute vast sums to their preferred candidates or policy preferences.

Subsequent rulings struck down aggregate limits for individuals to donate funds to campaigns in McCutcheon v. FEC in 2014, and caps on postelection contributions used to pay back candidates for personal loans made to their own campaigns in FEC v. Ted Cruz for Senate in 2022.

“In light of the doctrinal and factual changes since 2001, the United States agrees with plaintiffs that *Colorado II *no longer retains vitality,” Kavanaugh wrote. “So the government does not defend the constitutionality of the political-party coordinated-expenditure limits. We likewise agree with plaintiffs and now hold that FECA’s limits on political parties’ coordinated expenditures violate the First Amendment.”

Federal law regulates individual and political committee donations to prevent end runs around contribution limits. The national committee of a political party — the Republican National Committee and the Democratic National Committee — are exempt from the standard donation limits of $3,500 per election per candidate and $5,000 per year to any other political committee. Instead, donors can give party committees up to $44,300.

The RNC and DNC also get a special exemption allowing the parties to make expenditures in connection with the general election campaign of a candidate for federal office. Under this provision, the national committees can spend over $32 million for presidential campaigns, around $127,200 on Senate campaigns and $63,600 for most House campaigns.

Republicans argue the spending caps are a restriction on speech, violating the First Amendment. Congress enacted spending caps to reduce excessive campaign spending, the committees argue, not to stave off quid pro quo corruption.

The challenge hit a hiccup since Vance and Chabot are no longer candidates, and the Trump administration has vowed not to enforce the rule. The high court brushed off concerns about the lack of a live conflict to resolve during oral arguments in December 2025, suggesting a ruling would give candidates peace of mind if another administration should attempt to enforce the limits.

Justice Elena Kagan — joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson — dissented and warned the court was effectively allowing wealthy donors to circumvent campaign spending limits by first donating to a party who could then pass those through to the candidate’s campaign.

“Today, the court rewrites the rules, to allow circumvention of the contribution limits,” the Barack Obama appointee wrote. “The majority invalidates Congress’ restrictions 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,” Kagan added. “So the court ushers back in the same opportunities for quid pro quo corruption that the contribution limits were meant to check.”

Follow @KelseyReichmann Follow @kelseyreichmann.bsky.social