WASHINGTON — In a landmark decision on Tuesday, the Supreme Court nullified restrictions on the amount political parties can coordinate spending with congressional and presidential candidates. This move overturns a federal election law that has been in place for over half a century.
Spearheaded by a Republican-initiated lawsuit involving Vice President JD Vance, the court’s conservative justices formed the majority that struck down these legislative limits on political fundraising. This decision follows in the footsteps of the 2010 Citizens United ruling, which allowed unrestricted independent spending in federal elections.
The original spending caps were instituted to prevent substantial donors from bypassing limits on personal contributions to candidates, expecting their donations would instead bolster the party’s efforts specifically for those candidates.
In a previous ruling back in 2001, the Supreme Court supported these spending restrictions.
In 2022, Republican campaign committees representing House and Senate candidates filed a lawsuit in Ohio, joined by then-Senator JD Vance and then-Representative 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.
SEE ALSO: Supreme Court upholds state laws banning transgender girls, women from athletic teams
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.
Copyright © 2026 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.