United States Supreme Court, April 9, 2026 (Photo: Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)
In an Ohio case, the U.S. Supreme Court set limits on the amount political parties can spend in concert with their candidates. These restrictions have been in place since the 1970s and were created in response to corruption in the Nixon administration.
Since then, court decisions like Citizens United have struck down restrictions on campaign finance in the name of free speech.
Judge Brett Kavanaugh, writing 6-3 for mostplaced significant emphasis on the First Amendment rights of political parties.
“The text of the constitution matters,” he wrote. “Contrary to this text, restrictions on coordinated spending by political parties directly restrict political parties’ freedom of expression.”
Political parties and their affiliated campaign committees could already spend an unlimited amount of money on races, but that spending had to be made independently. This decision means they will now be able to coordinate communications with their preferred candidates.
Many observers criticized the decision as another example of the Supreme Court weakening campaign finance laws. Others, however, suggested that maybe it wouldn’t be so bad. If party contributions become more effective, more donors may choose this path, which requires more disclosure than the Super PACs and shadowy money groups that are playing an increasingly larger role in politics.
Where the case started
Four days before the 2022 general election, Republican U.S. Senate candidate J.D. Vance and U.S. Rep. Steve Chabot filed a lawsuit in Ohio challenging the coordinated spending limit.
Two campaign committees focused on electing Republicans to Congress, the National Republican Congressional Committee and the National Republican Senatorial Committee, also signed on.
Vance would win his race. Chabot wouldn’t do that.
The plaintiffs are noteworthy because in both cases their Democratic opponent was able to out-compete them — in Vance’s case, it was downright dramatic.
Despite $15 million in backing from venture capitalist Peter Thiel, some Republicans were wringing their hands in the summer of 2022 over Vance’s ponderous fundraising. Ultimately, his opponent, US MP Tim Ryan, raised $56.4 million; Vance earned just $15.2 million.
In their original court filing, Vance, Chabot and the GOP committees warned that limits on coordinated party spending would cause significant harm to “fundamental activities protected by the First Amendment.”
“And this harm has become even more pronounced in recent years,” they wrote, “as the growing spending of Super PACs and other outside groups, which, unlike party committees, can engage in unlimited fundraising to influence voters, has diminished the parties’ role in the political landscape.”
Notably, Republican Party-affiliated Super PACs pumped tens of millions of dollars into Ohio to facilitate Vance get to the finish line.
The United States Supreme Court’s decision and reactions
In 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court heard a Colorado case in which it upheld a law limiting coordinated spending among parties and candidates.
When the Vance and Chabot case came before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, the justices again upheld those restrictions, citing the 2001 decision.
“Yet, in a series of insightful opinions,” Justice Kavanaugh wrote, “a majority of the Court of Appeals justices questioned this precedent in light of more recent First Amendment decisions.”
Kavanaugh argued that subsequent campaign finance decisions distorted the earlier decision to the point that it “resembles a three-legged stool from which all three legs have already been knocked out.”
He wrote that over the years, the Court has applied a more stringent analysis of First Amendment cases and narrowed the scope of permissible restrictions to combating quid pro quo corruption.
Some of the parties in the case argued that the matter was controversial and the court should not comment on it.
The Trump administration has already decided not to defend coordination restrictions, and an executive agency, the Federal Election Commission, is responsible for enforcing the rules.
Does Vice President Vance really face the threat of execution from administration agencies? But he’s not a candidate for office anymore, is he?
Kavanaugh wrote that the court “does not need to speculate” about Vance’s potential future bids for office.
The vice president, widely seen as a likely 2028 presidential candidate, stood by his campaign coverage and statement about a U.S. Senate run, Kavanaugh insisted.
Defenders of coordination limits argued that they deter donors from circumventing contribution limits by giving parties directions on how to target a specific candidate – a practice known as earmarking. However, Kavanaugh rejected this argument.
Beyond contribution limits, earmarking rules and donation disclosure, the government already has all the tools it needs to stop donors from skirting campaign finance limits.
“Courts cannot simply say, ‘What harm is there in allowing one more regulation?’ when such an regulation would restrict free speech,” Kavanaugh wrote.
Last year, the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center filed an amicus brief defending coordination boundaries with the League of Women Voters and Common Cause.
CLC founder and president Trevor Potter was previously a candidate of the Republican Party and chairman of the Federal Election Commission.
After the decision, he said: “Repealing these limits will allow wealthy individuals to donate vast sums to party committees, with the understanding that the money will be spent directly to benefit their preferred candidates. American voters will pay the ultimate price.”
League of Women Voters CEO Celina Stewart said the court “opened the floodgates to unlimited political spending that will drown out the voices of ordinary Americans,” and Common Cause president Virginia Kase Solomon said the decision “invited even more corruption into our elections and further tipped the scales against the American people.”
On the other hand, professor Samuel Isaacharoff School of Law at New York University called the decision “a welcome correction“
A 2001 U.S. Supreme Court case upholding coordination restrictions placed restrictions on parties but left few restrictions beyond outside groups. This didn’t mean donors stopped spending, Isaacharoff wrote, they just stopped giving to events. As a result, single-issue or single-candidate groups are playing an increasingly essential role, Isaacharoff argues, to our detriment.
“Weakening the party vis-à-vis uncountable outside spenders does not reduce the influence of money in politics,” he wrote. “This separates influence from responsibility. A super PAC does not owe anything to the platform, coalition or future elections in the way a party does.”
Follow Ohio Capital Journal reporter Nick Evans on X Or on Bluesky.
