Supreme Court strikes down limits on party spending in federal elections
The Supreme Court struck down federal limits on how much political parties can spend in coordination with their candidates, ruling the caps violate free speech rights. The 6-3 decision split along ideological lines, with conservative justices in the majority and liberal justices dissenting.
Background
- The U.S. Supreme Court struck down federal limits on how much political parties can spend in coordination with their own candidates. The case originated in Ohio, where the state Republican Party wanted to spend more with a Senate candidate than the law allowed.
- The ruling invalidated part of the 2002 McCain-Feingold Act that capped "coordinated expenditures" — money parties spend in consultation with a candidate's campaign. The Court found these limits violated the First Amendment.
- This extends the post-2010 trend of deregulating campaign finance. Unlike *Citizens United* (which freed independent spending by corporations and unions), this case concerns spending done *with* a candidate, which had been treated more like a donation.
- Practical effect: parties can now write larger checks to their nominees and coordinate strategy without legal caps. Critics say this weakens anti-corruption protections and amplifies big money's role in politics.