The U.S. Supreme Court will hear a challenge on Dec. 9 to a federal law restricting political parties from coordinating spending with candidates.
The case pits those who say the First Amendment vigorously protects political speech against those who say the restrictions are needed to prevent corruption and the appearance of corruption in the political process.
Limits on spending that is coordinated between party committees and candidates were created on the theory that not having such limits encourages corruption and allows wealthy donors to have outsized influence.
Congress enacted the Federal Election Campaign Act in 1972 to limit spending and fundraising in campaigns for federal political office, amending it in 1974 to include limits on how much political party committees may accept and spend to influence a federal election.
The petitioners, National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), National Republican Congressional Committee, Vice President JD Vance, and former Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio), sued to strike down the restrictions in the case known as NRSC v. Federal Election Commission (FEC).
A divided U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled against the petitioners in September 2024, finding that even though the Supreme Court has repeatedly struck down various campaign finance restrictions, the limits on coordinated spending remained constitutional because the Supreme Court never reversed its landmark 2001 decision known as FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee, the petition stated.
Although the appeals court determined that coordinated party expenditure limits were inconsistent with recent Supreme Court rulings on the First Amendment, it upheld them, finding the issue was controlled by the still-binding 2001 precedent, according to the petition.
In recent decades, the court has invalidated campaign finance restrictions, finding they violate the First Amendment’s speech protections.
In Citizens United v. FEC (2010), the court ruled that corporations, nonprofits, and labor unions may spend unlimited amounts on elections, as long as the funds are not provided directly to or used in coordination with a candidate.
In McCutcheon v. FEC (2014), the court invalidated aggregate contribution limits, or the total amount that one donor may give in a specific federal election cycle to all political parties, candidates, and political action committees.
Normally, the U.S. solicitor general or his designate would appear in court to defend the challenged federal provisions, but the Trump administration said it believes the restrictions are unconstitutional, and therefore will not defend them. In a brief, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer said the provisions contain “a campaign-finance restriction that violates core First Amendment rights.”
On July 1, the Supreme Court appointed attorney Roman Martinez to defend the Sixth Circuit’s ruling that upheld the restrictions.
Supporters of the coordination restrictions say they prevent wealthy interests from dominating the political process.
The Democratic National Committee (DNC) said in a brief backing the restrictions that the Constitution does not guarantee to political parties “an unlimited right—unique among political bodies—to subsidize the campaign expenses of federal candidates.”
Legal experts interviewed by The Epoch Times say they expect the Supreme Court will strike down the coordination restrictions.
Dan Greenberg, senior legal fellow at the Cato Institute, said political parties exist to help elect slates of candidates and that interfering with their ability to do that violates the First Amendment.
Greenberg said he believes that the court will strike down the challenged provisions because “they are restrictive of free speech … [and] they prevent parties from doing the job that parties are supposed to do, which is to speak to voters about candidates.”
Carrie Severino, president of JCN (formerly the Judicial Crisis Network), said this should be “an easy case for the justices,” who have been “very protective of First Amendment rights,” especially political speech.
This article by Matthew Vadum appeared Dec. 9, 2025, in The Epoch Times.