Supreme Court Appears Skeptical of Limits on Coordinated Party Spending

WASHINGTON — Several conservative Supreme Court justices, including Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh, sharply questioned restrictions on how much national and state political parties can spend in coordination with their candidates, signaling potential willingness to strike down or weaken a key provision of federal campaign finance law.

The case, National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, centers on limits imposed by the Federal Election Campaign Act on “coordinated expenditures” — money that party committees spend directly with a candidate’s campaign on items such as advertising, travel, or event costs.

Attorneys for Republican party committees and two former Ohio candidates — Vice President JD Vance and former Rep. Steve Chabot — argued that these coordinated expenditures are protected political speech and that the caps violate the First Amendment.

Marc Elias, representing supporters of the limits, told the court that when a party pays a candidate’s bills it functions as a direct contribution, which Congress may constitutionally cap to prevent corruption or the appearance of corruption.

Justice Thomas pressed Elias on why coordinated spending should be treated differently from other forms of political expression.

“Just so I’m clear, is there any First Amendment interest in coordinated expenditures?” Thomas asked.

Elias answered that there is, but described the act of a party paying a campaign’s hotel or catering bills as “symbolic speech” that precedent treats as a contribution subject to limits.

“I still don’t understand what you’re saying,” Thomas replied. “If the party coordinates with the candidate and pays the bill, does that have First Amendment protection or is it simply, as you say, a bill-paying exercise?”

Justice Kavanaugh expressed concern that current law disadvantages political parties compared with super PACs and other outside groups that face no limits on fundraising or independent spending.

“A combination of campaign finance laws and this court’s decisions over the years have together reduced the power of political parties, as compared with outside groups, with negative effects on our constitutional democracy,” Kavanaugh said. “You can give huge money to the outside group, but you can’t give huge money to the party, so the parties are very much weakened.”

Liberal justices warned that removing the coordinated-spending caps would further erode safeguards against wealthy influence.

“Every time we interfere with the congressional design, we make matters worse,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor said. “Once we take off these coordinated expenditure limits, then what’s left? What’s left is nothing. No control whatsoever.”

The case is the latest in a line of challenges that have progressively loosened federal campaign finance restrictions since Citizens United v. FEC in 2010. A ruling striking down or raising the coordinated limits could significantly increase the flow of large donations through state and national party committees ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

 

The court is expected to rule by summer 2026.

--REAL AMERICA'S VOICE

#####