Supreme Court strikes down limits on party spending in federal
elections, backing Republican appeal
[July 01, 2026]
By MARK SHERMAN
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday erased limits on how much
political parties can spend in coordination with candidates for Congress
and president, striking down a federal election law that is more than 50
years old.
Prodded by a Republican-led lawsuit that includes Vice President JD
Vance, the court's six conservative justices were again in the majority
of the latest decision that upended congressionally enacted limits on
raising and spending money to influence elections. The court’s 2010
Citizens United decision opened the door to unlimited independent
spending in federal elections.
The limits on party spending stem from a desire to prevent large donors
from skirting caps on individual contributions to a candidate by
directing unlimited sums to the party, with the understanding that the
money will be spent on behalf of the candidate.
The Supreme Court had previously upheld the limits, in 2001.
But Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the court, said that decision
was wrong and should be overruled. “In short, constitutional text,
history and precedent establish that the political-party
coordinated-expenditure limits violate the First Amendment,” Kavanaugh
wrote.
Justice Elena Kagan's dissent for the three liberal justices said the
court “ushers in untold harm” by enabling parties to funnel large
contributions to individual candidates, far in excess of what donors can
give those candidates directly.
National parties now will be able to make direct contributions to
candidates’ campaigns,
The decision is likely to give Republicans at least a short-term boost
because they maintain a sizable cash advantage over Democrats.
The Republican National Committee and its Senate and House campaign
fundraising arms have dwarfed Democrats’ in the months before
congressional elections where the GOP is defending narrow majorities in
both houses.
At the end of May, the RNC reported having more than $125 million to
spend, its highest-ever cash on hand total, according to its most recent
Federal Election Commission filing in May. Meanwhile, the National
Republican Senatorial Committee had more than $48 million on hand in its
most recent report and the National Republican Congressional Committee
had more than $81 million.
[to top of second column]
|
The U.S. Supreme Court is seen Monday, June 29, 2026, in Washington.
(AP Photo/Mariam Zuhaib)
In the same period, the Democratic National Committee had $14.4
million on hand, while the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee
had roughly $37 million and the Democratic Congressional Campaign
Committee, roughly $73 million.
The Republican committees for House and Senate candidates filed the
lawsuit in Ohio in 2022, joined by Vance, then a senator from Ohio,
and then-Rep. Steve Chabot.
After President Donald Trump took office for his second term, the
Federal Election Commission dropped its defense of the law and
joined with Republicans in urging that it be overturned.
Democrats had called on the court to uphold the law, even though
there is wide agreement that the spending limits have hurt political
parties in an era of unlimited spending by other organizations.
Last year, the coordinated party spending for Senate races ranged
from $127,200 in several states with small populations to nearly $4
million in California, the most populous state. For House races, the
limits were $127,200 in states with only one representative and
$63,600 everywhere else.
Entrenched divisions between liberal and conservative justices over
campaign finance restrictions were on display when the court heard
arguments in December.
“Every time we interfere with the congressional design, we make
matters worse,” said Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a dissenter in
Citizens United and the court’s other campaign money cases.
By contrast, Justice Samuel Alito, a member of the Citizens United
majority, described the decision as “much maligned, I think unfairly
maligned.” The effect of the decision was to ”level the playing
field,” Alito said, by expanding the right to spend freely that had
previously belonged only to media companies.
___
Associated Press writer Thomas Beaumont contributed to this report.
All contents © copyright 2026 Associated Press. All rights reserved |
