supreme-court-campign-finance-spending-limits

Supreme Court strikes down party spending limits

Andrew Pantazi

Campaign stickers for Michael Whatley's U.S. Senate bid are displayed next to an "Honoring God With My Vote" flyer at a North Carolina election night event. — "Whatley U.S. Senate" stickers sit at a North Carolina primary election event for Republican Senate candidate Michael Whatley in Charlotte, North Carolina, on March 3. Photo: Cornell Watson/Bloomberg via Getty Images

The Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down federal limits on how much political parties may spend in coordination with candidates, handing party committees a major win and reshaping campaign-finance rules ahead of the midterms.

Why it matters: Freed from the caps, party committees can now spend without limit alongside their candidates — making them a far more powerful magnet for the big-dollar money that's flooded into super PACs over the past 15 years.

Driving the news: In a 6–3 decision with a majority opinion by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the court held that the coordinated party expenditure limits violate the First Amendment.

The decision overturns a 25-year-old precedent that had upheld the same limits.

The intrigue: The decision comes at a time when insurgent anti-establishment candidates have garnered success in both parties.

Supporters of striking down Congress' limits on coordination have said the guardrails weaken parties while super PACs and other outside groups have become dominant players, especially after the court's landmark 2010 Citizens United decision.
Critics say removing the caps could let major donors evade the few remaining anti-corruption safeguards, which is a stepping stone to allowing PACs to directly coordinate with candidates.
The decision could make party committees more attractive vehicles for donor money in competitive races.

What they're saying: "More speech is generally better than less speech," Kavanaugh wrote for the majority.

In dissent, Justice Elena Kagan warned that the ruling brings about an old era of corruption: The "Court ushers back in the same opportunities for quid pro quo corruption that the contribution limits were meant to check."

President Trump praised the ruling on Truth Social, calling it "A BIG WIN FOR REPUBLICANS and, more importantly, The First Amendment!" His administration had declined to defend the law in court.

Catch up quick: The case, National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, was brought by two Republican committees, Vice President Vance and former Ohio Rep. Steve Chabot.

They argued the law prevented party committees from coordinating effectively with their own candidates on core political speech.
The ruling is the latest in a line of Supreme Court campaign-finance decisions narrowing the government's power to restrict political spending.