US Supreme Court strikes down federal limits on political party spending coordinated with candidates

Published 30 June 2026 · politics

The US Supreme Court on Tuesday (June 30) struck down a decades-old federal law limiting how much political parties can spend in coordination with candidates

The US Supreme Court on Tuesday (June 30) struck down a decades-old federal law limiting how much political parties can spend in coordination with candidates for Congress and the presidency, marking another significant ruling on campaign finance. The decision removes restrictions that had governed coordinated party spending for more than 50 years and is expected to reshape how political parties fund federal election campaigns. Court overturns decades-old campaign finance law In its ruling, the Supreme Court invalidated federal limits on coordinated spending between political parties and their candidates. Quick answers to key questions • 5 QUESTIONS 1 What did the US Supreme Court ruling on June 30 change regarding political party spending? ⌵ The ruling struck down federal limits on coordinated spending between political parties and candidates, which had been in place for over 50 years. 2 Why were limits on political party spending introduced in the first place? ⌵ These limits were designed to prevent wealthy donors from circumventing individual campaign contribution limits by donating unlimited sums to political parties for the benefit of specific candidates.

3 How did the Supreme Court's decision affect future election campaigns in the US? ⌵ The decision is expected to significantly reshape how political parties fund their campaigns for Congress and the presidency by removing prior spending caps. 4 What were the spending limits for political parties before the Supreme Court ruling? ⌵ Before the ruling, Senate races had spending limits that varied by state, ranging from $127,200 to nearly $4 million, while House races were limited to $63,600 or $127,200, depending on the state. 5 Should political parties prepare for changes in fundraising strategies after the Supreme Court ruling? ⌵ Yes, political parties should adapt their fundraising strategies, as the removal of spending limits allows for greater financial support from donors without the previous restrictions. The case was brought by Republican Party committees representing House and Senate candidates and included JD Vance, who joined the lawsuit while serving as a US senator from Ohio, along with former Representative Steve Chabot. The lawsuit challenged provisions of federal election law that had capped the amount political parties could spend directly in coordination with candidates.

Why were the limits introduced? The spending restrictions were designed to prevent wealthy donors from bypassing individual campaign contribution limits. Lawmakers argued that without such caps, donors could give unlimited amounts to political parties with the expectation that the money would ultimately benefit a specific candidate. The Supreme Court had previously upheld these restrictions in 2001. Latest in a series of campaign finance rulings The ruling adds to a series of Supreme Court decisions expanding the role of money in US elections. The court's landmark 2010 Citizens United decision allowed corporations, unions and outside groups to spend unlimited amounts independently in federal elections. Tuesday's decision further loosens campaign finance restrictions by removing limits on spending coordinated directly between political parties and candidates. Trump administration backed the challenge The lawsuit was initially filed in 2022 by Republican campaign committees. After President Donald Trump returned to office for a second term, the Federal Election Commission withdrew its defense of the law and joined Republicans in asking the Supreme Court to strike it down.