WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down longtime campaign finance rules challenged by Vice President JD Vance that place limits on how much a national political party committee can spend in coordination with individual candidates.
In a 6-3 ruling authored by conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the court found that the restrictions violate free speech rights under the Constitution's First Amendment, based on the theory that political spending is a form of speech.
The challenge was brought by the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the National Republican Congressional Committee and the campaigns of two candidates in the 2022 elections: Vance, who was then running as a Republican candidate for the Senate in Ohio, and then-Rep. Steve Chabot, a Republican congressman from the same state who lost his re-election bid.
The Federal Election Commission, under the Trump administration, sided with the challengers.
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority has historically been skeptical of campaign finance restrictions on free speech grounds, and Republicans have often brought challenges against them.
A string of Supreme Court rulings has stripped back campaign finance restrictions over the years, including the 2010 Citizens United v. FEC decision, which paved the way for unlimited independent expenditures by outside groups known as super PACs.
Republicans’ House and Senate campaign committees celebrated the new ruling in a joint statement from Rep. Richard Hudson, of North Carolina, the NRCC chair; and Sen. Tim Scott, of South Carolina, who chairs the NRSC.
“The Supreme Court made clear that the federal government has no authority to place arbitrary limits on how political parties support the candidates they nominate,” Hudson and Scott said, adding: “We are ready to fully support our candidates and put them in the strongest possible position to win in 2026 and beyond.”
The Democratic National Committee and the party’s House and Senate campaign committees, meanwhile, called the ruling “a win for billionaire donors and special interests” and accused Republicans of “rewriting the rules” in their own statement from DNC Chair Ken Martin; Rep. Suzan DelBene, of Washington; and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, of New York.
Under the law struck down, parties could make unlimited independent expenditures in support of a candidate — which must be done separately from the candidate's campaign — but cannot exceed limits on coordinated spending done in conjunction with a campaign.
That can include such spending as hiring a venue or fundraising consultants or paying for a candidate’s travel, the Republicans said in court papers.
The current limit varies based on the population of voting age in specific House or Senate elections; it can be as much as almost $4 million for Senate races and $127,000 for at-large House seats.
With the flood of spending that resulted from the Citizens United ruling, the existing caps have had an increasingly marginal effect on addressing the original intention of keeping money out of politics to avoid corruption or the appearance of it.
