In National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court held 6-3 that the Federal Election Campaign Act’s restrictions on how political parties coordinate spending with their own candidates violate the First Amendment.
The en banc Sixth Circuit had upheld the restriction under the Court’s 2001 decision in FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee, known as Colorado II, though a majority of its judges questioned that precedent. The Justice Department declined to defend the law before the Supreme Court, and the Court appointed outside counsel to argue in its place.
Justice Kavanaugh, writing for the Court, explained that campaign spending may only be restricted to prevent quid pro quo corruption, meaning contributions exchanged for official acts. Because existing contribution and disclosure rules already prevent donors from funneling money through parties to candidates, he wrote, the added coordinated-expenditure caps “impose a severe and direct restriction on free speech and infringe fundamental First Amendment values.”
The majority justified overruling, rather than narrowing, Colorado II by calling it “akin to a three-legged stool where all three legs have already been knocked out.” Kavanaugh also pointed to the growing gap between political parties and outside spending groups. Super PACs raised $15.7 billion in the 2024 election cycle, compared to $2.7 billion for parties, and he framed the ruling as restoring balance between the two.
The ruling is likely to increase the strength of political parties to recruit and support candidates and to enforce party discipline given their now unlimited ability to coordinate spending with favored candidates.
Read Opinion Here: NRSC v. FEC