Supreme Court lifts limits on coordinated party spending, 6-3, reshaping midterm campaign finance

The ruling

In a 6-3 opinion written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the court held that caps on coordinated party expenditures violate the First Amendment, overturning a 25-year-old precedent. The case was brought by the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the National Republican Congressional Committee, Vice President JD Vance and former Representative Steve Chabot, all Republicans.

More speech is generally better than less speech.

Justice Elena Kagan dissented, warning the decision revives avenues for corruption. The ruling extends the court's post-2010 campaign finance rollbacks, which began with Citizens United.

The Court ushers back in the same opportunities for quid pro quo corruption that the contribution limits were meant to check.

Financial landscape

The three main Republican committees held $256 million in cash with no debt at end of May, more than double the $126 million held by Democrats, who also carried over $18 million in debt. The ruling erodes a Democratic advantage: candidates get lower broadcast ad rates than super PACs, and party committees can now spend directly with candidates, making them magnets for large donors.

Political reaction

Noel J. Francisco, lawyer for the Republican groups, had told the justices during arguments that the limits were "at war" with the First Amendment. The Trump administration supported the challenge, arguing the federal law abridged free speech. The FEC, which lacks a quorum since April 2025, was represented by outside counsel Roman Martinez, who contended the limits guard against quid pro quo corruption.

What comes next

Freed from caps, party committees become far more powerful vehicles for donor money in the November midterms, likely increasing advertising volume. Critics say the decision removes a key firewall, moving closer to direct coordination between candidates and super PACs.