---
title: "Supreme Court Strikes Down Limits on Coordinated Party Campaign Spending"
description: "The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Monday that federal caps on how much political parties may spend in direct coordination with their candidates violate the First Amendment — erasing limits that stood for a quarter century and clearing the way for unlimited coordinated spending in federal elections."
category: "Politics"
category_url: https://herald.la/category/politics
author: "Omar Haddad"
published: 2026-06-30T14:48:00.000Z
updated: 2026-06-30T14:48:00.000Z
canonical: https://herald.la/article/supreme-court-strikes-down-limits-on-coordinated-party-campaign-spending
tags: ["Supreme Court", "campaign finance", "First Amendment", "elections", "political parties", "FEC"]
---
# Supreme Court Strikes Down Limits on Coordinated Party Campaign Spending

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Monday that federal caps on how much political parties may spend in direct coordination with their candidates violate the First Amendment — erasing limits that stood for a quarter century and clearing the way for unlimited coordinated spending in federal elections.

A pillar of post-Watergate campaign finance law fell on Monday, one of the most consequential election-law rulings in years.

## What the Court decided

In *National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission*, the Court held 6-3 that federal limits on "coordinated" spending — money a party committee spends in concert with its own candidate — are an unconstitutional restraint on political speech, [NPR reported](https://www.npr.org/2026/06/30/nx-s1-5827039/supreme-court-campaign-finance). Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the conservative majority, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett. Justice Elena Kagan dissented, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. The decision overturns a 2001 precedent, *FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee*, that had upheld the caps.

## The limits that vanished

Under the rules struck down, party committees could spend only capped amounts coordinating with a given candidate — figures that ranged from roughly $65,000 for many House races to several million dollars for the largest Senate states, [according to the Federal Election Commission's 2026 schedule](https://www.fec.gov/updates/coordinated-party-expenditure-limits-adjusted-for-2026/). Those ceilings, rooted in the 1971 Federal Election Campaign Act, are now gone; parties may spend without limit in tandem with their nominees. Writing for the majority, Kavanaugh said the ruling "treats all political parties equally" and lets committees "coordinate more closely with their candidates," [CBS News reported](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-nrsc-v-federal-election-commission-coordinated-spending/), applying the Court's post-*Citizens United* view that only explicit quid-pro-quo corruption can justify limits on political spending.

## The dissent's warning

Kagan and the dissenters argued the majority misjudged the danger. Lifting the cap, she warned, lets wealthy donors push money through party committees to favored candidates, effectively routing around the contribution limits that still apply to direct donations. The Campaign Legal Center, which defended the limits on behalf of the Democratic National Committee, said unlimited coordinated spending would "fundamentally reshape" the campaign-finance system and deepen the appearance — and the risk — of corruption.

## Who benefits

Supporters cast the decision as a win for free association and for the parties themselves. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, a longtime foe of spending limits, had urged the Court to strike them, and free-speech groups argued parties — accountable to voters — should face the fewest barriers in backing their candidates. One practical effect may be to strengthen the formal parties relative to super PACs: super PACs can raise unlimited money but are barred from coordinating with campaigns at all, while parties can now do both.

## Background

The case began in 2022, when the NRSC and the National Republican Congressional Committee — joined by Republican officeholders including JD Vance, then a Senate candidate and now vice president — challenged the caps. A federal appeals court upheld them as bound by the 2001 precedent; the Supreme Court took the case in 2025, heard arguments in December and issued Monday's decision, the latest in a run of end-of-term rulings reshaping federal election law.

## Sources

- [Supreme Court strikes down limits on political party spending](https://www.npr.org/2026/06/30/nx-s1-5827039/supreme-court-campaign-finance)
- [Supreme Court strikes down coordinated campaign spending limits](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-nrsc-v-federal-election-commission-coordinated-spending/)
- [National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC (24-621)](https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/national-republican-senatorial-committee-v-federal-election-commission/)