The US Supreme Court has struck down decades-old federal limits on how much political parties can spend in coordination with their candidates for Congress and the presidency, in a 6-3 ruling along ideological lines that marks a significant further deregulation of American campaign finance law. The decision in NRSC v. FEC, handed down on 30 June 2026, overturns a restriction that had been in place for more than 50 years and reverses a 2001 Supreme Court ruling that had upheld the limits.

The case was brought by the National Republican Senatorial Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee, joined by Vice President JD Vance — then an Ohio Senate candidate — and others who argued the spending caps violated the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech. The conservative majority agreed, holding that the limits unduly prevented political parties from "freely" and "fully" advocating for their nominees. After President Donald Trump returned to office, the Federal Election Commission dropped its defence of the law and sided with the plaintiffs. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, one of three dissenters, warned the court against overriding congressional design, while Justice Samuel Alito, writing with the majority, argued the ruling would level the playing field by extending spending freedoms more broadly.

The struck-down limits had capped coordinated party spending at between roughly $63,600 and $4 million per race depending on the office and state population. In a system already awash with money — political action committees and so-called super PACs spent a combined $15.5 billion in the 2024 election cycle, dwarfing the $2.6 billion spent by parties — the practical immediate effect may be more modest than it first appears. Experts suggest that some money previously flowing through outside groups will now shift to party committees, giving candidates greater control over campaign messaging. Parties will also gain access to the lowest advertising rates available to candidates, meaning more campaign ads are likely on television.

In the short term, the ruling is widely seen as advantageous to Republicans, whose party committees have had a significant fundraising edge over their Democratic counterparts in the current cycle. Over time, analysts expect the playing field to level out as donors adapt their giving patterns. Of greater long-term concern to campaign finance scholars is what this ruling signals about the durability of remaining restrictions. Rick Hasen, a professor of law and political science at UCLA, warned that bans on unlimited "soft money" donations to parties — introduced by the 2002 McCain-Feingold Act — could be the next target, potentially opening the door to a scale of political spending without modern precedent.

The decision is the latest in a trajectory dating back to the court's landmark 2010 Citizens United ruling, which opened the door to unlimited independent spending in federal elections by corporations and unions. Since then, successive rulings have progressively dismantled much of the campaign finance framework put in place after the Watergate scandal of the 1970s. Campaign finance scholars note that in 2016, no individual or couple donated $100 million or more to political groups; by 2024, nine donors had each crossed that threshold, collectively contributing some $900 million. Critics argue the cumulative effect is a political system increasingly responsive to a small number of very wealthy donors rather than to voters at large.