Supreme Court rolls back federal limits on campaign finance

The Supreme Court on Tuesday rolled back longstanding limits on the amount of money political parties can spend in coordination with individual candidates for federal office — a ruling that could unleash a wave of new spending before the midterms.

Writing for the majority in the 6-3 ruling, Justice Brett Kavanaugh found that the limits, enacted by Congress following the Watergate scandal, unconstitutionally restrict free speech.

“In short, constitutional text, history, and precedent establish that the political-party coordinated-expenditure limits violate the First Amendment,” Kavanaugh wrote.

The ruling hands a victory to the Republican Party — including Vice President JD Vance, who backed the lawsuit when he was a senator — which had argued the spending limits were unconstitutional and ineffective in their purported goal of fighting corruption.

Experts have predicted that a roll back of the restrictions will prompt a flood of political spending and television ads. 

President Donald Trump celebrated the decision in a social media post, calling it, “A BIG WIN FOR REPUBLICANS and, more importantly, The First Amendment!”

Congress first imposed party-candidate spending limits in 1974, and the Supreme Court had previously upheld them as valid safeguards against bribery.

Under the 2026 limits, the Federal Election Commission capped coordinated spending for Senate races to between $130,600 and $4 million depending on state size, and between $65,300 and $130,600 for House races.

Two Republican Party campaign committees, along with then-Sen. Vance and former Rep. Steve Chabot, R-Ohio, filed suit against the FEC in 2022.

By the time the case reached the Supreme Court, the Trump Justice Department — which had already stopped enforcing the limits — declined to defend the FEC. The Democratic National Committee and a court-appointed attorney stepped in to argue for keeping the limits.

Tuesday’s ruling continues a nearly two-decade-long trend of the nation’s high court narrowing campaign finance law on free speech grounds, building on its 2010 Citizens United decision, which lifted caps on corporate campaign spending. 

In addition to finding that the limits infringe on political speech, the majority also noted that the measures were not necessary to combat corruption, citing “other meaningful prophylactic measures” such as earmarking rules and disclosure requirements. 

“In light of the other meaningful prophylactic measures available to the Government, and given the severe infringement on First Amendment-protected political speech that ensues from limiting a political party’s spending in support of its candidates, we conclude that the political-party coordinated-expenditure limits are ‘disproportionate’ and are not ‘necessary’ and ‘narrowly tailored’ for the circumvention interest it seeks to protect,” Kavanaugh wrote.

Supporters of the spending limits have argued that the rules prevent quid pro quo corruption as well and restrict individuals from using political parties to circumvent other campaign finance rules. 

“If those contributions, which dwarf the base limits on [individual] contributions to candidates, are effectively placed at a candidate’s disposal through coordinated spending, they become potent sources of actual or apparent corruption,” attorneys for Public Citizen, a nonprofit voter advocacy group, wrote in a brief to the Supreme Court.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, writing that the ruling, “jettisons a rule needed to protect our democracy’s integrity.” 

“The Court ushers back in the same opportunities for quid pro quo corruption that the contribution limits were meant to check,” Justice Kagan wrote, adding that the ruling will enable a political “party to serve as an alternative checking account for a campaign.” 

The ruling is expected to prompt a flood of spending by political parties ahead of the midterm elections. According to the FEC, 2026 Senate candidates have so far spent more than $490 million ahead of the midterms, while House candidates have spent nearly $1 billion. 

The campaign arms of House and Senate Republicans celebrated the Supreme Court’s decision on campaign finance spending as “a decisive First Amendment victory and a major win for the integrity of our political system.”

The National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) was one of the main plaintiffs in the case. Jessica Furst Johnson, counsel of record in the case, said the ruling “marks a major turning point for political speech in America.”

“For years, federal law irrationally treated coordination between political parties and their own candidates as suspect, subjecting parties to an unfair restriction on First Amendment speech, and limiting information flow to voters,” Johnson said. “The Supreme Court correctly recognized those restrictions as unconstitutional, strengthening the marketplace of ideas, and restoring order to our political ecosystem. Make no mistake — this is a win for voters and the electorate at large.”

In a joint statement, Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., who chairs the National Republican Senatorial Committee, and Rep. Richard Hudson, R-N.C., who chairs the National Republican Congressional Committee, wrote, “This is a decisive First Amendment victory and a major win for the integrity of our political system … By striking down these unconstitutional caps on coordinated spending, the Court has restored core political speech and ensured parties can compete on a level playing field.”

The campaign arms of House and Senate Democrats, as well as the chair of the main Democratic Party, condemned the Supreme Court’s decision on Tuesday as “a win for billionaire donors and special interests who want more influence over the GOP agenda and an invitation for corruption” while saying they are confident Democrats will win in November’s midterm elections.