NRSC v. FEC: How Democrats are Navigating New Terrain in 2026
The Supreme Court’s decision in NRSC v. FEC eliminated longstanding federal limits on coordinated spending between party committees and candidates, delivering the most significant campaign finance ruling since Citizens United.
Leaving aside the question of which party stands to benefit more from a fundraising standpoint, the decision raises broader questions about how control of political spending may shift and whether party committees are poised to reclaim the influence that has steadily migrated to super PACs over the past decade.
Campaigns & Elections Editor-in-Chief Max Greenwood sat down with three of the Democratic Party’s leading voices on campaign finance and fundraising to unpack what the ruling means for their side of the aisle heading into the 2026 midterms: Brian Derrick, co-founder and CEO of Democratic fundraising platform Oath; Rachel Jacobs, partner at Elias Law Group and general counsel to the DCCC; and Brian Svoboda, a partner at Ashurst Perkins Coie and a 29-year campaign finance veteran, whose experience with coordinated spending law dates back to the original Colorado Republican Committee v. FEC litigation.
The conversation explores who stands to gain as party committees begin exercising their new authority, whether Super PACs still hold structural fundraising advantages and what the ruling could mean for state parties and down-ballot candidates. Watch the full conversation above.
For the Republican perspective, register here for the August 6 Election Briefing featuring Bradley Crate, President and Founder of Red Curve Solutions; Jessica Furst Johnson, co-chair of the political law group at Lex Politica; and Mike Hahn, president of digital at Frontline Strategies.
