Supreme Court lifts Watergate-era caps on campaign spending

By Fredreka Schouten, John Fritze, CNN

(CNN) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday lifted a Watergate-era cap on how much money political parties may spend in coordination with candidates, siding with Republicans in a case initially filed by then-Senate candidate JD Vance that experts say could ultimately benefit the GOP in this year’s midterm election.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the opinion for a 6-3 conservative court.

He said a previous precedent, upholding the cap, has helped outside groups “gain an unwarranted and unfair advantage over competitor political parties in the political process.”

Keeping limits in place, he said, would “help consign political parties to continued second-tier status as compared to outside groups.”

“Weakened political parties distort the political system,” Kavanaugh added.

The dissent of the court’s liberals, written by Justice Elena Kagan, blasted the Supreme Court for another decision that dismantles campaign finance reforms.

“I’m not sure what to call a remnant of a remnant, but that is what the Court has left today,” she wrote, warning that the legal regime created by the rulings is “increasingly unable to stop political corruption, and thus to preserve our institutions’ democratic legitimacy.”

The ruling has immediate implications for the upcoming midterm elections that will determine which party controls Congress. It frees party committees to spend more money in close coordination with campaigns and take advantage of lower advertising rates that candidates have long received.

In a joint statement, South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott and North Carolina Rep. Richard Hudson, who respectively oversee the Republican Senate and House campaign committees, hailed the ruling.

“By striking down these unconstitutional caps on coordinated spending, the court has restored core political speech and ensured parties can compete on a level playing field,” they said. “We are ready to fully support our candidates and put them in the strongest possible position to win in 2026 and beyond.”

Democrats cast the ruling as one that will help prop up Republican congressional candidates who have largely been outraised by individual Democrats throughout this election cycle.

Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin, joined by New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand and Washington Rep. Suzan DelBene — who oversee the Senate and House campaign committees for Democrats, called the decision a “win for billionaire donors and special interests who want more influence over the GOP agenda and an invitation for corruption.”

Since the 1970s, political party committees, such as the fundraising arm of Senate Republicans, have been capped at how much money they may spend in coordination with a campaign. That has pushed a flood of campaign money toward super PACs, which have no spending limits but are unable to run their advertising and other messages past the candidate they want to help.

In 2022, Vance and several party committees — including the National Republican Senatorial Committee — challenged the law as a violation of the First Amendment. From the beginning, they appeared to have the upper hand at the 6-3 conservative court.

The majority has in recent years repeatedly invalidated campaign regulations. Several years ago, the court struck down a limit on campaigns’ ability to use post-election funds to repay loans made by candidates. In 2014, the court eliminated limits on how much donors could give to all candidates and parties in aggregate during a two-year period. Four years before that, the court handed down its decision in Citizens United v. FEC, which allowed corporations to spend unlimited sums in candidate elections.

Republicans argued that the caps on coordinated party spending were hopelessly out of step with the court’s modern approach to campaign finance law. And they asserted in briefing that the law “harmed our political system by leading donors to send their funds elsewhere,” such as super PACs.

Financial advantage

Even before the court’s decision was handed down, Republican party committees entered the election year with a substantial financial advantage over Democrats. The Republican Party has had significantly more cash on hand than the Democratic National Committee in recent disclosure reports.

In recent cycles, however, individual Democratic candidates in key races for Congress typically have outraised Republicans, powered by small-dollar donations. The ruling paves the way for Republican campaign committees to counter Democratic candidates’ longstanding grassroots fundraising edge.

Both Democrats and Republicans have been preparing for the ruling and looking for ways to capitalize on it.

As they prepared for a new fundraising landscape, some party committees held off on establishing and hiring staff and consultants for so-called “independent expenditure” operations — arms that are firewalled from political parties’ day-to-day functions to focus on advertising in the most competitive races.

In a memo sent to supporters following Tuesday’s ruling, the NRSC announced it was formally “sunsetting” its independent expenditure unit. It urged candidates to now lean on the party to “absorb costs” for key campaign functions, such as polling and some television and radio advertising and direct mail.

What voters will likely see is a flood of new political commercials this year, as party committees race to seize on their newfound ability to work directly with candidates and take advantage of lower advertising rates that broadcasters must offer to candidates close to Election Day under federal law.

Tuesday’s decision marked the second time in as many days, that the Supreme Court has overruled a precedent.

Democrats, who intervened to defend the campaign finance limits at issue in the case, argued that the Supreme Court already decided the question in a 2001 precedent, FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee. Kavanaugh, writing for the 6-3 majority, said that decision, known as Colorado II, was overruled.

“To the extent that Colorado II has retained any vitality,” Kavanaugh wrote. “It is now overruled.”

(A day earlier the court overruled a 1935 Supreme Court precedent known as Humphrey’s Executor v. US that allowed Congress to include restrictions on when a president may fire the leaders of certain independent agencies.)

In Tuesday’s dissent, Kagan argued the now-dismantled caps worked to protect against quid pro quo corruption, writing that they prevent a donor from circumventing the limits on campaign contributions.

“For those who think there is too much of it in this country—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 decision was released on the final day of the second fundraising quarter for congressional campaigns, and candidates quickly referenced it in their appeals for political donations.

In a Substack post Tuesday, Jeff Allen, who is managing Democrat Roy Cooper’s Senate campaign in North Carolina, warned of a new flood of money to benefit the Republican nominee, Michael Whatley. “This race was already expected to be the first billion-dollar Senate race in history,” he wrote. “Today, the Supreme Court basically guaranteed it.”

Allen concluded by asking supporters to help knock on doors or “chip in a few dollars.”

This story has been updated with additional information.

The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.

CNN’s Tierney Sneed and Dianne Gallagher contributed to this report.