Supreme Court Questions Spending Curbs on Political Parties (1)

The US Supreme Court weighed Republican calls for a fresh rollback of campaign-finance regulations, questioning federal caps that limit spending by political parties in coordination with candidates.

Hearing arguments for more than two hours in Washington Tuesday, the justices weighed contentions by the Trump administration and the GOP that the 51-year-old spending limits violate the Constitution’s free speech clause. Democrats are backing the caps.

The conservative-majority court indicated it will divide along ideological lines, though the session didn’t make the ultimate outcome clear. One of the conservatives, Justice Neil Gorsuch, asked no questions and another, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, interjected only once.

The court is considering overruling a 2001 decision that sustained the restrictions as a means of tackling corruption and ensuring donors don’t use parties as a conduit to circumvent separate limits on direct contributions to candidates.

Chief Justice John Roberts, a potentially pivotal vote, suggested he didn’t see much distinction between contribution limits, which the court has long upheld, and caps on coordinated expenditures. “I don’t know in substance what the difference is,” he said.

But another conservative, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, suggested he might be looking to give political parties a boost. Kavanaugh said past Supreme Court decisions had combined with campaign finance laws to weaken political parties compared to outside groups, “with negative effects on our constitutional democracy.”

The court in the 2010 Citizens United case struck down limits on corporate and union political spending, paving the way for the super–PACs that have since become major factors in US campaigns.

One member of the 2010 majority, Justice Samuel Alito, on Tuesday referred to the ruling as “our much maligned – I think unfairly maligned – decision in Citizens United.”

Should the court lift the limits on coordinated expenditures, Republicans would likely have an early advantage heading into the midterms.

Through the end of October, the Republican National Committee has raised about $101 million in so-called hard money, which can be used to influence elections, compared to about $89 million for the Democratic National Committee, Federal Election Commission filings show. The DNC has spent far more than its GOP counterpart, and had $18 million in the bank with $15 million in debts compared to $91 million for the RNC.

But fundraising advantages, which are often enhanced by holding the presidency or majorities in Congress, can be short lived. The DNC took in a total of $684 million in the two-year, 2024 election cycle, compared to $476 million for the RNC.

Depending on the seat, the coordinated-spending limits ranged from $61,800 to $3,772,100 at the time of the appeals court decision. The caps, which Congress enacted in 1974, are adjusted for inflation.

Outside groups, which are barred from cooperating on advertising buys with candidates, spend far more in swing states and districts. In the 2024 Ohio Senate contest pitting Democrat Sherrod Brown, then the incumbent, against businessman Bernie Moreno, the eventual winner, super political action committees and political nonprofits spent $282 million, FEC records show. Coordinated party expenditures in the state were limited to $1.1 million.

The caps are being challenged by the National Republican Senatorial Committee, National Republican Congressional Committee, now-Vice President JD Vance and former Representative Steve Chabot of Ohio.

The Trump administration said in May that it would join the Republican committees in opposing the spending limits. Deputy Solicitor General Sarah Harris told the high court Tuesday the caps “unconstitutionally restrict core election speech.”

The Trump administration’s stance prompted the court to appoint an outside lawyer, Roman Martinez, to defend the law. The DNC and two party campaign committees are also supporting the law, which was upheld by a federal appeals court.

The DNC’s lawyer, Marc Elias, said the limits “do not pose any meaningful burden on party speech.”

Martinez urged the court to dismiss the case, saying it is moot given that the Federal Election Commission under Trump says it doesn’t plan to enforce the spending limits. Martinez also contended that Vance couldn’t serve as a plaintiff because he hasn’t explicitly said he’s running for president or any other specific federal office.

The Vance argument didn’t get much traction with the court. “Isn’t that what potential candidates always say until the day when they make the announcement?” Alito asked.

The court is scheduled to rule by July, early enough to affect the 2026 election. The case is National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, 24-621.

(Updates with excerpts from arguments starting in seventh paragraph.)

--With assistance from Bill Allison.

To contact the reporter on this story:
Greg Stohr in Washington at gstohr@bloomberg.net

To contact the editors responsible for this story:
Elizabeth Wasserman at ewasserman2@bloomberg.net

Steve Stroth

© 2025 Bloomberg L.P. All rights reserved. Used with permission.