US Supreme Court strikes down campaign spending limits in landmark ruling

The US Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down federal limits on coordinated campaign spending between political parties and their candidates, ruling in a 6-3 decision that such caps violate the First Amendment's protection of free speech. The six conservative justices formed the majority, with the three liberal justices dissenting. The ruling came on the final day of the court's current term.

The decision overturns a 2001 precedent in Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. FEC, which had upheld similar limits. The court found that the restrictions on coordinated expenditures—funds spent jointly by a party and a candidate—were unconstitutional. Under the previous law, independent expenditures not coordinated with a candidate were unlimited, but coordinated spending was capped. In 2025, those caps ranged from about $127,000 to $3.9 million for Senate candidates and from roughly $63,000 to $127,000 for House candidates, varying by state population.

The case originated from a 2022 lawsuit filed by Republican candidates, including then-Ohio Senate candidate JD Vance, who is now Vice President. They challenged a provision of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. The Trump administration's Federal Election Commission declined to defend the law, prompting the Supreme Court to appoint attorney Roman Martinez to argue its case. The Democratic National Committee and other Democratic groups intervened to support the limits.

The ruling arrives as the November midterm elections approach, with Republicans holding a significant financial advantage. The three major Republican campaign committees ended May with $256 million in cash and no debt, more than double the $126 million held by their Democratic counterparts, who also carried over $18 million in debt.

This term, the Supreme Court has issued several election-related rulings. On Monday, it upheld state laws allowing mail-in ballots received after Election Day to be counted. In April, it weakened a key provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, enabling Republican-led states to redraw electoral maps in ways that could threaten Democratic-held House seats.