Supreme Court Strikes Down Major Campaign Finance Provision

Action: On June 30, 2026, the Supreme Court struck down Federal limits on the amount of money that political parties can spend in coordination with candidates for Federal office. In National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission,¹ the Court ruled 6-3 that that the limits under the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) violate the First Amendment.

Trusted Insights for What’s Ahead^®

• The ruling invalidates FECA’s limits on the amount of money party committees may spend in direct coordination with candidates. In 2026, those caps ranged from $65,300 and $130,600 for House races and from $130,600 to just over $4 million for Senate races, depending on the size of the district or state.² The decision overrules the Court’s 2001 decision in Federal Election Commission v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee,³ which upheld those limits.
• The majority emphasized that the ruling “treats all political parties equally” and will allow party committees, including the Democratic and Republican National Committees and their respective Senate and House campaign committees, “to participate more freely and compete more fully in the political process, and to coordinate more closely with their candidates.”
• The case was brought in 2022 when four challengers – two candidates and two national party committees – challenged FECA’s coordinated party expenditure limits, arguing that the caps violated the First Amendment by restricting the ability of party committees to align campaign communications and strategy with their candidates.⁴
• Both this case and the 2010 case of Citizens United concern regulation of campaign finance spending and expand the bounds of political speech protected by the First Amendment. But while Citizens United concerns independent expenditures by corporations and unions, this case concerns coordinated expenditures between political parties and candidates.
• The majority opinion also highlights that Federal Election Commission regulations on disclosure and prohibiting earmarking of contributions from individuals to candidates in donations to political parties remain in effect, as do total individual contribution limits to candidates. The Court believes these provisions are narrowly tailored to the government’s interest in deterring corruption.
• In the short term, the ruling may provide a greater advantage to Republicans, as that party has had an easier time raising money this election cycle and can now deploy more resources in coordination with candidates. Over time, however, the decision may lead to a shift in spending from outside groups and super PACs toward party committees, giving candidates and parties more control over campaign messaging and communications.⁵
• What this means for business: The ruling is likely to increase the role of party committees and may shift how political resources are deployed in the 2026 midterm elections and beyond.
  • Businesses, trade associations, PACs, and other stakeholders should expect party committees to have greater strategic influence and fundraising leverage.
  • Political Action Committees (PACs), including those raising funds from voluntary contributions from employees of a business, will likely face greater fundraising requests from political parties and related House and Senate campaign committees. They may wish to reallocate giving strategies to give more money to party committees rather than to individual candidates, which would give party committees greater ability to intervene in races of their choosing.
  • The ruling does not eliminate other Federal campaign finance requirements, including candidate contribution limits, corporate contribution prohibitions, disclosure obligations, and earmarking restrictions. Organizations should also continue to account for all applicable pay-to-play, lobbying, and internal compliance rules.