Washington — On Tuesday, the Supreme Court delved into the contentious issue of federal restrictions on the spending limits political committees can engage in alongside federal candidates. This case could potentially follow the path of recent decisions where the high court has unraveled campaign finance regulations.

The case, identified as NRSC v. FEC, scrutinizes the spending caps established by Congress under the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, which was enacted to oversee the financial aspects of federal election campaigns.

For the 2023 to 2024 election period, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) set the spending range for party committees between $61,800 and $123,000 for House campaigns, and from $123,600 to a substantial $3.7 million for Senate campaigns. In a 2014 revision, Congress allowed unlimited coordinated expenditures on specific activities, including lawsuits concerning election recounts and other legal processes.

The current legal challenge was initiated in 2022 by JD Vance, then a candidate for the Senate, alongside former Representative Steve Chabot of Ohio, and two Republican entities, the National Republican Senatorial Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee.

These Republican groups challenged the FEC, arguing that the spending limits on coordination infringe upon the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause. However, a federal appeals court upheld these limits, referencing a 2001 Supreme Court decision that had previously maintained them.

The Republicans appealed to the Supreme Court. The FEC under President Trump agrees that the spending limits burden the rights of political parties and candidates  and should be struck down. The high court appointed a lawyer, Roman Martinez, to argue in defense of the restrictions, and allowed a trio of Democratic Party committees to intervene.

Oral arguments

Over the course of the arguments on Tuesday, three of the court’s conservative justices, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh, appeared likely to strike down the spending caps as a violation of the First Amendment.

Kavanaugh repeatedly expressed concern about the power of political parties and whether they have been weakened relative to outside groups like super PACs because of campaign finance laws and the Supreme Court’s decisions. That weakening has “negative effects on our constitutional democracy,” he said. 

“The parties have been weakened overall, and this case is at least … starts to restore the strength of parties, although obviously it doesn’t get them all the way there in competing with outside groups,” Kavanaugh said.

Justice Neil Gorsuch did not ask any questions, and Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett probed lawyers only sparingly. 

In one early exchange, Roberts pressed Noel Francisco, who argued on behalf of the Republicans, on whether there is a distinction between spending by parties and candidates, and contributions to their campaigns. He called it a “fiction” that coordinated expenditures are not direct contributions to candidates, which are subject to limitations under federal law.

The three liberal justices, meanwhile, warned that lifting these restrictions could open the door to corruption and allow donors to funnel bribes to candidates through the political party committees in circumvention of limits on direct contributions.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor took aim at the Supreme Court’s string of recent rulings that have rolled back campaign finance laws, beginning with its 2010 ruling in the case Citizens United v. FEC, which struck down prohibitions on political spending by corporations.

“Every time we interfere with the congressional design, we make matters worse,” she said, adding that the court’s “tinkering causes more harm than good.”

“Once we take off this coordinated expenditure limit, then what’s left?” she asked Francisco. “What’s left is nothing, no control whatsoever.”

But Sarah Harris, the principal deputy solicitor general, rejected the suggestion that Congress imposed the caps solely to prevent corruption in the campaign-finance system.

“We think the design of that scheme completely refutes any quid pro quo interest and reveals … that the real interest is in trying to have Congress and its incumbents prescribe how much money is appropriate in particular contexts, how much money should be spent in particular election contexts,” Harris said.

Martinez, the court-appointed lawyer defending the restrictions, said that the Republicans and the Trump administration are asking the Supreme Court to overturn 50 years of campaign finance law and said the justices should dismiss the case on the grounds that it is moot. The FEC doesn’t believe the coordinated spending caps are constitutional, and an executive order from Mr. Trump effectively bars it from enforcing the rules, he said.

“No one thinks President Trump is going to enforce this law and target his own vice president,” he told the Supreme Court.

Martinez also noted that Vance is not a candidate for federal office and has declined to definitively say whether he will run for president in 2028, so he is not harmed by the limits.

Alito, however, wasn’t convinced.

“Isn’t that what [all] potential candidates always say until the day when they make the announcement?” he said.

Martinez also warned that while the Republicans are asking only to strike down the limits on coordinated party spending, it’s likely they will be back before the Supreme Court urging it to dismantle a host of other campaign finance rules, like restrictions on how much donors can give to parties.

“You’re going to be deluged with petitions, the dominos are going to fall and you’re going to have to reconstruct campaign finance law from the ground up,” he said.

The Supreme Court is likely to issue a decision by the end of June or early day, just months before the 2026 midterm elections.