A new era for coordinated campaigning

Earlier this year, the Federal Election Commission capped coordinated political party spending at $65,300 for most House candidate campaigns. The limit was higher for Senate candidates: $130,600 to nearly $4.1 million, depending on the size of the state.

Now, candidates could get potentially even more money, thanks to last week’s Supreme Court ruling that struck down the limits on coordinated expenditures. Such spending occurs when parties fund campaign activities in direct consultation with candidates.

The Supreme Court ruling means that political candidates will be free to rely more heavily on coordinating with national party committees in campaigns going forward. But while the Democratic Party decried the case’s outcome as a loss for democracy, experts say the ruling is unlikely to drastically alter political campaigning or work to the detriment of either Republicans or Democrats in the long term. While some worry about a higher risk for corruption, others note the ruling simply brought the spending rules in line with that of political action committees that have no limit.

“If Super PACs can raise unlimited money, then why can’t the parties?” argued David Keating, president of the Institute for Free Speech, a nonpartisan Washington, D.C., nonprofit dedicated to defending First Amendment rights.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh delivered the majority opinion in the 6-3 ruling in National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC on June 30.

“The First Amendment’s protection of free speech has its ‘fullest and most urgent application precisely to the conduct of campaigns for political office,’” wrote Kavanaugh. “For that reason, this Court has determined that political parties—as well as candidates, private individuals, and outside groups—may make unlimited independent expenditures during political campaigns.”

The court’s three liberal justices dissented in the ruling. Rick Hasen, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, called the ruling predictable in light of the court’s approach to campaign finance issues under Chief Justice John Roberts.

“The Court has struck down or called into question every campaign finance limit it has examined since Justice [Samuel] Alito replaced Justice [Sandra Day] O’Connor on the Court,” Hasen told me in an email. “This case reverses yet another case from the period when Justice O’Connor was on the Court and the Court was much more willing to uphold reasonable campaign finance regulations.”

A 2001 Supreme Court case known as Colorado Republican II upheld federal limits on how much money political parties could spend in coordination with candidates. But the plaintiffs in this year’s NRSC v. FEC contended that developments since the 2001 ruling rendered it obsolete—specifically, changes in campaign finance law and the rise of unlimited expenditure political action committees, or super PACs.

Unlike super PACs, which are strictly barred from working directly with candidates, parties can coordinate with nominees. Parties also have the advantage of discounted advertising rates, while super PACs have to pay the market rate.

Michael Beckel, director of the money in politics reform program for Issue One, a bipartisan political reform group in D.C., said by email that super PAC programs may shut down or see reduced roles following the court’s decision. Beckel cited a June 30 NRSC memo saying it plans to sunset its in-house independent expenditure program. But in the same memo, the NRSC also called super PACs essential and praised them for aggressively defining political opponents and for their fundraising and canvassing programs. “Most super PACs are not going away,” said Beckel.

Also at the heart of the controversy is the assumption that rolling back the coordinated expenditure limits will increase opportunities for corruption.

Keating argues this concern is unfounded. Many states already allow unlimited party coordination, and Keating says the Federal Election Commission, the defendant in the case, couldn’t name a single example of quid pro quo corruption when it was done through a party.

“When there’s corruption, it appears to be directly from the donor to the candidate, not through a third party,” said Keating. “If it does or did happen, it’s probably going to be pretty rare … I don’t think we can be figuring out laws to limit First Amendment freedoms on hypothetical concerns about corruption.”

But in Beckel’s opinion, it’s not just a hypothetical. Beckel shared a report from the Campaign Legal Center citing several purported examples of quid pro quos involving political contributions made to President Donald Trump’s campaign and supportive super PACs, and he also pointed to enforcement cases of apparent quid pro quo corruption tied to large super PAC contributions.

“With the Supreme Court eliminating the coordination limits, the risk of quid pro quo corruption associated with large contributions to the political parties has just increased,” wrote Beckel.

Last week, the court’s majority argued that a combination of guardrails—including base contribution limits, earmarking rules, and disclosure requirements—together serve the government’s interest in preventing corruption. But in her dissent, Justice Elena Kagan outlined a hypothetical scenario where a donor could circumvent those rules and effectively pay $550,000 or some other large amount to support a candidate’s campaign. Kagan argued that the majority believes that no quid pro quo corruption can occur because of an “unwillingness to deal in the specifics of campaign finance.”

Regardless, the appearance of corruption can still be problematic for voters. Last year, Issue One found more than 3 out of 4 Americans—including 84% of Democrats, 68% of Republicans, and 77% of independents—agreed with the statement that “the appearance of wealthy donors or corporations gaining influence over or access to elected officials causes me to lose faith in this democracy.”

Keating argued people just don’t trust politicians in the first place. “I don’t think people have really thought this through necessarily,” he added.

National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman Tim Scott, R-S.C., and National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Richard Hudson, R-N.C., issued a joint statement following the ruling. “By striking down these unconstitutional caps on coordinated spending, the Court has restored core political speech and ensured parties can compete on a level playing field,” they wrote. “We are ready to fully support our candidates and put them in the strongest possible position to win in 2026 and beyond.”

The same day, three Democratic party committees released a statement calling the ruling “a win for billionaire donors and special interests who want more influence over the GOP agenda and an invitation for corruption. … Democrats are fighting back for the American people, and in November, voters will reject Republicans’ toxic agenda and efforts to rig the system and weaken our democracy by electing a Democratic House and Senate majority.”

Keating said that despite the partisan divide, there isn’t a clear long-term advantage for one party over another.

“In this cycle, maybe this decision will help the Republicans marginally, but, in a couple years time, it can go the other way. What’s really important is not whose advantaged today or tomorrow, it’s what the First Amendment says,” said Keating.

Beckel wrote that, historically, both parties have quickly adapted to major campaign finance changes.

“While Republican national committees like the NRSC and NRCC have been stockpiling funds in anticipation of this ruling, Democratic [committees] are likely eager to start catching up,” wrote Beckel.

Republican National Committee Chairman Joe Gruters confirmed that the party had been anticipating the court’s decision in a statement to WORLD, saying, “The RNC has been preparing for this ruling, and we are ready to expand the ways we directly help and provide resources to Republican candidates across the country.”

Ultimately, Keating says that it will be up to parties to wield their newfound freedoms effectively in order to get their message across to voters.

“Money doesn’t buy results in elections,” said Keating. “There have been countless candidates, just in this cycle, who’ve gone down in flames, despite massively outspending their opponents. … It’s not just how much you spend. It’s what you’re spending it on, what message you’re conveying.”