Roberts Court Kills Limits on Spending by Parties on Candidates
NEWS & RESEARCH
In June 2026, the Supreme Court struck down federal limits on how much political parties can spend in coordination with their candidates' campaigns, overturning a rule that had stood more than 50 years and that the Court itself had upheld in 2001. Those limits had been imposed to avoid donors circumventing the ceiling on how much they may contribute directly to a campaign in a given election cycle. Without these safeguards, donors can write a much larger check to the party, which can spend unlimited sums on that donor's chosen candidate. In her dissent, Justice Elena Kagan noted that "a donor will be able to give a party as much as half a million dollars (as compared to the $7,000 he can give directly to the candidate) to cover the candidate's bills.” The ruling is expected to benefit the GOP. The Republican National Committee has $125 million in the bank—which it can now spend with no ceiling—whereas the Democratic National Committee carries $18.3 million in debt. The change is also expected to unleash a flood of money into TV advertising. Under recent FCC guidance—now being challenged in court—coordinated party ads would also qualify for the discounted rates long reserved for candidates, letting that unlimited money buy far more airtime. The 6-3 decision split along ideological lines—the latest in a line of rulings dismantling protections against the influence of big money in politics—with the GOP majority equating freedom to spend on campaigns with free speech. The case, NRSC v. FEC, stemmed from a 2022 lawsuit brought by the National Republican Senatorial Committee and JD Vance, while he ran for Senate in Ohio.
SOURCES: New York Times | Politico | Washington Post | NPR | CNBC | The Guardian | Reuters | PBS | CNN | Campaign Legal Center
ANALYSIS & OPINION
Legal experts, anti-corruption scholars, and campaign finance watchdogs decried the Court's decision, with The Guardian describing it as the fall of “one of the last remaining barriers between wealthy donors sending unlimited funds to federal political candidates.” In her dissent, Justice Kagan warned that "with no limits on coordinated expenditures, the party can serve as the candidate's checking account," ushering back in "the same opportunities for quid pro quo corruption that the contribution limits were meant to check." Democratic party committee chairs echoed her, calling the ruling "a win for billionaire donors and special interests who want more influence over the GOP agenda and an invitation for corruption." The Brennan Center's Eric Petry called the ruling "another example of the Court's drive to destroy anti-corruption laws," built on "this really radical and wrong interpretation of the First Amendment." For now, individuals still face limits on what they can donate to party committees, but even those limits are sure to be challenged by conservative activists in the coming years.
SOURCES: The Guardian | Washington Post | New York Times | CNBC | PBS
HOW TO FIX IT
Federal action:
Strengthen the safeguards still in place. The Court justified lifting the caps by pointing to the guardrails that remain—earmarking restrictions, disclosure requirements, and contribution limits. That reasoning is also a roadmap: reinforcing those exact rules is both the most direct repair and the hardest for the justices to strike down without contradicting themselves.
Amend the earmarking rule in 52 U.S.C. § 30116 (a)(8) to cover informal arrangements. Federal law already says that money a donor passes through a party "earmarked" for a specific candidate counts against the donor's limit to that candidate. On paper, that blocks the loophole this ruling opened. In practice, though, it does not: the Federal Election Commission (FEC) only counts money as "earmarked" if the donor explicitly says so—a wink does not qualify. Congress or the FEC could rewrite the rule to cover unspoken deals, so that any donation a candidate solicits for the party, which the party then spends on that candidate, counts as a direct contribution.
Congress can require parties to publicly report every coordinated expenditure within 24 hours, itemized to show which candidate benefited and which donors financed it. Currently, party spending is disclosed only in periodic filings that never connect a donor’s contribution to a candidate’s race, making it difficult to trace how wealthy donors finance individual campaigns through party committees. The DISCLOSE Act, reintroduced in 2026, provides a model by requiring 24-hour reports for expenditures over $10,000 and banning shell entities that conceal donors. However, the bill applies only to outside groups like super PACs—not political parties themselves. While disclosure cannot restore the spending limits, it would make the new loophole transparent.
Pass the Democracy For All Amendment. Reintroduced in 2025 in both chambers, the constitutional amendment would restore the authority of Congress and the states to limit the raising and spending of money in elections—overriding the line of Supreme Court decisions equating campaign spending with free speech. Because the Court struck down the limits on constitutional grounds, no statute can bring them back; only an amendment can. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, 25 states have already passed resolutions calling for such an amendment, which nearly 80% of Americans favor.
Enable the Federal Election Commission to investigate and enforce campaign law violations. The FEC has lacked a quorum since April 2025, when President Trump dismissed one commissioner and two others departed—vacancies he has since declined to fill—leaving it below the four votes federal law requires for any major enforcement action. Thus, donors who openly violate the earmarking rules face an agency that cannot investigate or penalize them. The Freedom to Vote Act would help prevent the FEC from "being stymied by partisan gridlock" by requiring a majority vote to shut down investigations, so a deadlocked minority can no longer kill cases. It would also extend the statute of limitations from five to ten years, so violations do not expire while the agency sits paralyzed.
State action:
Limit state party coordinated spending. The Supreme Court’s ruling struck down federal limits, but states can still impose their own limits on how much political parties spend in coordination with candidates for state office. Arizona, for example, caps party contributions to candidates at $80,500 for gubernatorial candidates and $8,500 for legislative candidates. These limits are now legally vulnerable, though, because the ruling’s First Amendment reasoning could also be applied to state laws, meaning they may be one lawsuit away from falling.
Cap individual contributions to state parties. Currently, 28 states either place no limit on what individuals and PACs can give state parties or allow contributions above $36,500. If donors can pour unlimited money into state party committees, those parties have far more money available to spend in coordination with candidates. States like Massachusetts and Connecticut already cap what individuals can give state parties each year—at $5,000 and $15,000, respectively.
Litigation:
Brown et al. v. FCC: In March 2026, the FCC issued guidance stating that party ads coordinated with candidates qualify for the heavily discounted television and radio rates that federal law guarantees political candidates. Four Democrats sued, arguing that the law reserves those rates for candidates alone. If the challengers prevail, parties can still spend unlimited sums—but at full commercial prices, which cost up to ten times as much, thereby stripping the new spending power of some of its force. The court granted an emergency motion to expedite, as the lawsuit "takes on new significance in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision in NRSC v. FEC."
Legislation: S.J.Res.43 - A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections | S.3991 - DISCLOSE Act of 2026 | H.R.11 - Freedom to Vote Act
