Already a subscriber? Make sure to log into your account before viewing this content. You can access your account by hitting the “login” button on the top right corner. Still unable to see the content after signing in? Make sure your card on file is up-to-date.

The Supreme Court struck down decades-old limits on how much political parties can spend in coordination with their candidates.

Some shit you should know before you dig in: Back in 1971, Congress passed the Federal Election Campaign Act to regulate how money is raised and spent in US elections, with the broad goal of preventing corruption. One piece of that law drew a key distinction: a party could spend unlimited amounts advocating for or against a candidate as long as that spending was “independent” from the candidate’s campaign. It also allowed spending that was coordinated with a campaign, but that spending faced limits (which varied by the size of the state or district). The Supreme Court had actually upheld these caps once before, in a 2001 decision known as Colorado II. Then in 2022, the National Republican Senatorial Committee and National Republican Congressional Committee filed suit to overturn the limits. They argued the caps violated the First Amendment. When Trump returned to office, his Federal Election Commission walked away from defending the law and lined up behind the Republican challengers, prompting the court to appoint an outside lawyer to defend the caps, and Democratic committees to intervene in the law’s defense.

What’s going on now: In a 6-3 decision split along ideological lines, the court found that the caps violate the First Amendment on the logic that spending money in politics is itself a form of speech, handing Republicans a major win heading into the midterms. Writing for the majority, Justice Brett Kavanaugh said the restrictions amounted to a “severe infringement on First Amendment-protected political speech” and overruled the 2001 Colorado II precedent.

He also argued the caps had kept parties weak relative to outside groups. “To uphold the political-party coordinated-expenditure limits here could therefore help consign political parties to continued second-tier status as compared to outside groups. Weakened political parties distort the political system,” Kavanaugh wrote.

In dissent, Justice Elena Kagan warned the ruling “ushers in untold harm” by opening the door for parties to route huge sums to individual candidates, way past the ceiling donors face when giving to those campaigns directly. “For those who would prefer even more money to be pumped even more easily into politics despite the danger of corruption — this overruling is for you,” she wrote.

The practical effect will be immediate. Parties can accept far bigger donations than individual candidates ($44,300 a year to national party committees versus $3,500 per cycle to candidates), so removing the coordination cap effectively lets candidates control a much larger pot of money. It’s expected to unleash a flood of political advertising too, since candidates get far lower TV ad rates than super PACs, meaning coordinated party-candidate ads can stretch dollars much further.

Trump called it “A BIG WIN FOR REPUBLICANS and, more importantly, The First Amendment!” on Truth Social, while NRSC Chair Tim Scott and NRCC Chair Richard Hudson said in a joint statement they were “ready to fully support our candidates and put them in the strongest possible position to win in 2026.”

Democrats blasted it as “a win for billionaire donors and special interests who want more influence over the GOP agenda and an invitation for corruption.”