US supreme court strikes down limit on spending by political parties in support of candidates

Voters cast their ballots at the Community Presbyterian Church on election day in Merrick, New York, on 4 November 2025. Photograph: James Carbone/Newsday via Getty Images View image in fullscreen Voters cast their ballots at the Community Presbyterian Church on election day in Merrick, New York, on 4 November 2025. Photograph: James Carbone/Newsday via Getty Images US supreme court strikes down limit on spending by political parties in support of candidates Case stems from 2022 lawsuit challenging Federal Election Commission’s enforcement of limits on ‘coordinated party expenditures’ Sign up for the Breaking News US email to get newsletter alerts in your inbox One of the last remaining barriers between wealthy donors sending unlimited funds to federal political candidates fell after the US supreme court struck down a lower court ruling that limited spending by political parties in support of their candidates. The case, National Republican Senatorial Committee v Federal Election Commission, stems from a 2022 lawsuit by JD Vance, Republican former congressman Steve Chabot of Ohio, the National Republican Senatorial Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee, challenging the Federal Election Commission’s enforcement of limits on so-called “coordinated party expenditures”. The US supreme court has chipped away at restrictions on political donations and spending over the last two decades. The Citizens United v FEC ruling of 2010 struck down federal restrictions on corporate spending by independent groups influencing elections, followed in 2014 in McCutcheon v FEC, which struck down the aggregate limits on how much an individual may contribute to all candidates and committees combined in an election cycle. Together, this lead to the rise of Super Pacs raising and spending unlimited amounts of money on campaigns, which is legal as long as there is no coordination between the organization and the candidate. Meanwhile, large contributions to joint fundraising committees allowed parties and candidates to raise funds together under their combined limits. Vance and the plaintiffs argued that limits on political party spending are unnecessary when Super Pacs have no meaningful restrictions. The law as it stands “severely restrict political party committees from doing what the first amendment entitles them to do: fully associate with and advocate for their own candidates for federal office”. The Trump administration supported Vance’s case, leading the court to appoint outside counsel to represent the FEC, which has not had a quorum since April 2025 and cannot initiate enforcement actions. Roman Martinez, advocating to uphold the law, argued that ending the limits effectively legalizes quid pro quo political corruption, and that Vance’s claim is moot because the vice-president has “repeatedly denied having any concrete plan to run for office in 2028”. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion More details soon … Explore more