The Supreme Court on Tuesday will hear a closely watched challenge to longstanding limits on how much national political parties may spend in coordination with their candidates — a case that could reshape the financial landscape of federal elections.
At issue are “coordinated party expenditure limits,” federal rules dating back to the 1970s that were enacted as part of a broad anti-corruption overhaul. These limits cap how much support a party can provide directly to a candidate’s campaign strategy, messaging, and voter outreach. While the Court has previously struck down restrictions on independent political spending, it upheld coordinated expenditure limits more than 20 years ago, drawing a firm line between independent advocacy and direct collaboration with candidates.
The new challenge comes from Vice President J.D. Vance — who filed the lawsuit while serving in the Senate — former Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio), and the GOP’s congressional campaign committees. They argue that the current limits violate the First Amendment, asserting in their filings that it is “past time” for the Court to revisit and overturn the earlier precedent.
Their case arrives at the high court with the backing of the Trump administration, which stopped defending the provision and agreed it should be struck down as unconstitutional. That shift left the Federal Election Commission, normally the agency responsible for enforcing and defending campaign finance rules, without a government ally in the dispute.
To fill that void, the Democratic National Committee stepped in to defend the law. The DNC is represented by prominent Democratic election attorney Marc Elias. A court-appointed lawyer will also argue in support of the existing limits, ensuring the justices hear a full defense of the statute despite the administration’s position.
Supporters of the current rules say coordinated spending limits remain a critical safeguard against corruption and excessive party influence over individual candidates. They argue that without such caps, national party committees could effectively sidestep contribution limits by channeling massive amounts of money directly into campaigns while still claiming compliance with the law.
Vance and Chabot previously lost in the lower courts, which ruled that existing Supreme Court precedent squarely supports the limits. But the challengers now hope the Court’s current conservative majority will be more receptive to their arguments that party spending, even when fully coordinated with campaigns, should receive the same First Amendment protections as independent expenditures.
The outcome could significantly alter how political parties and candidates collaborate heading into the next election cycle. A ruling to strike down the limits would open new, potentially vast, avenues for parties to financially bolster their nominees. A decision to uphold them would reaffirm a foundational element of post-Watergate campaign finance law.
.jpg)
