Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Case on Coordinated Spending
The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a Republican challenge to campaign finance restrictions that seeks to overturn limits on how much party committees can spend in coordination with federal candidates.
The challenge – brought by the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the National Republican Congressional Committee and two candidates in the 2022 elections, including now-Vice President JD Vance – argues that existing restrictions on party spending in coordination with candidates amount to a violation of free speech rights.
“A political party exists to get its candidates elected,” the plaintiffs wrote in their petition to the Supreme Court. “Yet Congress has severely restricted how much parties can spend on their own campaign advertising if done in cooperation with those very candidates.”
Under the current law, political parties are allowed to make unlimited independent expenditures in support of a candidate. Coordinated spending, however, remains limited to as much as $4 million for Senate nominees and up to $127,700 for candidates running for at-large House seats.
In agreeing to hear the challenge to long-standing spending restrictions, the Supreme Court opened the door to once again knocking down campaign finance rules that have governed party spending for decades. The court is likely to hear arguments in the case this fall.
”The government should not restrict a party committee’s support for its own candidates,” NRSC Chair Tim Scott, R-SC, and NRCC Chair Richard Hudson, R-NC, said in a joint statement on Monday. “These coordinated expenditure limits violate the First Amendment, and we appreciate the Court’s decision to hear our case.”
“Coordinated spending continues to be a critical part of winning campaigns, and the NRSC and NRCC will ensure we are in the strongest possible position to win in 2026 and beyond,” they added.
Justices Skeptical of Campaign Finance Laws
The Supreme Court has long shown a willingness to overturn campaign finance restrictions on the basis that many of the rules violate free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Perhaps one of the most notable examples came in 2010 in Citizens United v. FEC, when the court overturned restrictions on independent expenditures by corporations, effectively paving the way for unlimited independent expenditures by outside groups.
When the Supreme Court hears this latest challenge to coordinated party expenditures, the existing law won’t have the government to lean on for support.
The Trump administration notified the Supreme Court last month that it will not defend the current law that restricts spending by political parties in coordination with their candidates. Meanwhile, the Federal Election Commission, which currently lacks a quorum, has said that it agrees with the plaintiffs’ argument that the limits violate First Amendment rights.
That leaves the Democratic National Committee and its associated groups as the primary defenders of the existing law. The DNC, along with the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, filed a motion earlier this month asking the Supreme Court to allow the groups to defend the current law.
“The Republican Party has spent decades trying to eliminate statutory limits on political party expenditures that are coordinated with candidates’ campaigns,” lawyers for the committees wrote in their motion.
