Supreme Court strikes down federal limits on party spending coordinated with candidates

The Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down the federal cap on how much a political party can spend on a race in coordination with its own candidate, ending a limit that had stood since the 1970s. The vote was 6 to 3.

The decision in National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission means the national party committees and the federal accounts of state parties can now spend without a ceiling on ads, mail, and other paid messaging they plan directly with a candidate. The ruling applies to both parties and takes effect for the 2026 midterm elections now underway.

What the limits were

Federal law drew a line between two kinds of party spending. Spending a party did on its own, without consulting the candidate, was already unlimited after the Court's 2010 decision in Citizens United v. FEC. Spending a party coordinated with the candidate, called a coordinated party expenditure, was capped. Tuesday's ruling removes that cap.

For 2026, the Federal Election Commission had set the coordinated limit at $65,300 for most U.S. House races, and $130,600 in states with a single House member. For Senate races the cap varied by state population, from $130,600 in Wyoming to about $4.07 million in California. Those ceilings no longer apply.

The limits were part of the Federal Election Campaign Act, the post-Watergate law codified at 52 U.S.C. Section 30116. In 2001, in FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee, the Court had upheld the same limits by a vote of 5 to 4. Tuesday's decision overrules that precedent.

The majority

Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the majority. He said the only interest that can justify a campaign finance restriction under the Court's recent cases is preventing "quid pro quo" corruption, which he defined as contributions traded for official action. The coordinated limits, he wrote, "impose a severe and direct restriction on free speech" and are not "narrowly tailored" to that interest.

Supporters of the limits had argued they were needed to stop donors from evading the caps on direct contributions by routing money through a party and directing it to a specific candidate, a practice known as earmarking. Kavanaugh said other rules already guard against that, including the base limits on contributions, federal laws that count earmarked money as a contribution to the candidate, and disclosure requirements. He noted that most states do not cap coordinated spending and, quoting the record, that "no evidence of corruption via circumvention has materialized."

Kavanaugh rejected the argument that the Court should keep the 2001 precedent, comparing it to "a three-legged stool where all three legs have already been knocked out." He wrote that the ruling "treats all political parties equally" and will let the DNC, the RNC, and the parties' House and Senate committees "coordinate more closely with their candidates."

The dissent

Justice Elena Kagan dissented, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. She wrote that the majority "rewrites the rules, to allow circumvention of the contribution limits" and "jettisons a rule needed to protect our democracy's integrity."

Kagan argued the decision opens the door to the same corruption the contribution caps were meant to check. Under the ruling, she wrote, 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."

How the case reached the Court

The case began in 2022, when the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the National Republican Congressional Committee, then-Senate candidate JD Vance, and then-Representative Steve Chabot, Republican of Ohio, sued in federal court in the Southern District of Ohio. They argued the coordinated limits violated the First Amendment by keeping the committees from working with candidates on a shared message.

The full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit upheld the limits. Chief Judge Jeffrey Sutton wrote that the challengers had made "fair points" but that the appeals court was bound by the 2001 precedent.

After the challengers asked the Supreme Court to take the case, the Trump administration told the justices it agreed the limits were unconstitutional and would not defend them. With the government no longer defending the law, the Court appointed lawyer Roman Martinez to argue in support of the limits. The Democratic National Committee intervened to defend them as well. The Court heard argument on December 9, 2025.

What it changes for 2026

The ruling is symmetric on its face. Both national parties, and the federal accounts of state parties, can now spend without a coordinated-expenditure cap on their own candidates. The direct contribution limits from donors to candidates, and federal disclosure rules, remain in place. Kavanaugh pointed to those rules as the guardrails that survive; Kagan wrote that they will not hold.