最高法院裁定废除联合竞选支出限制

Supreme Court strikes down coordinated campaign spending limits

2026-06-30 10:28 EDT / CBS News

By

Updated on: June 30, 2026 / 11:11 AM EDT / CBS News

Washington — The Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down federal limits on the amount of money a political committee can spend in coordination with federal candidates, further unwinding restrictions on the flow of money into congressional campaigns just months ahead of the midterm elections.

In the case National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, the court divided 6-3 along ideological lines in finding that the caps on what are called coordinated party expenditures violate the First Amendment.

The decision joins a line of recent rulings from the court’s conservative majority that have invalidated campaign finance limits on the grounds that they restrict political speech.

In an opinion authored by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the high court’s conservative majority said its decision “treats all political parties equally. It will allow all political parties — including the DNC and RNC and the respective Senate and House campaign committees, as well as other parties and party committees — to participate more freely and compete more fully in the political process, and to coordinate more closely with their candidates.”

At the center of the case were limits imposed by Congress through the Federal Election Campaign Act, which was passed to regulate the financing of federal campaigns. In the 2026 election cycle, party committees can spend between $65,300 and $130,600 in coordination with congressional campaigns, and between $130,600 and $4 million with Senate candidates, according to the FEC. Congress amended the law in 2014 to allow unlimited coordinated spending on certain activities, such as election-recount lawsuits or other legal proceedings.

In 2022, then-Senate candidate JD Vance, then-Rep. Steve Chabot of Ohio and two Republican committees filed a lawsuit challenging the spending limits as violations of the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause. A federal appeals court upheld the caps, citing a 2001 Supreme Court ruling that had left an earlier version of the limits intact.

But in the 25 years since that ruling, the composition of the high court changed considerably. It now has a 6-3 conservative majority.

When the dispute arrived at the high court, the FEC under the Trump administration joined with the Republicans in urging the justices to strike down the caps. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued the limits violate the First Amendment by restricting parties’ right to engage in political speech in coordination with their candidates.

The court appointed an outside lawyer, Roman Martinez, to argue in defense of the limits. Democratic campaign committees also urged the Supreme Court to uphold the caps.

Since 2010, the Supreme Court has issued a series of rulings knocking down campaign finance restrictions. In the landmark case Citizens United v. FEC, decided that year, the high court struck down prohibitions on political spending by corporations. Then, in 2014, the Supreme Court invalidated the limit on the amount of money a donor could contribute to federal candidates in a two-year election cycle.

Its latest decision came in 2022 in a case involving Sen. Ted Cruz, a Texas Republican. In that ruling, the high court said a cap on the amount of post-election contributions that can be used to repay a candidate who loaned their campaign money was unconstitutional.

Republicans and Democrats react to ruling

Democrats criticized the ruling as weakening safeguards against corruption in elections, while Republican leaders applauded the court’s decision on free speech grounds.

“This is a decisive First Amendment victory and a major win for the integrity of our political system,” NRCC Chair Rep. Richard Hudson and NRSC Chair Sen. Tim Scott said in a statement. “The Supreme Court made clear that the federal government has no authority to place arbitrary limits on how political parties support the candidates they nominate. 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 added, “We are ready to fully support our candidates and put them in the strongest possible position to win in 2026 and beyond.”

President Trump, in a social media post, declared it “A BIG WIN FOR REPUBLICANS and, more importantly, The First Amendment!”

Meanwhile, Democratic Party leaders called the ruling “a win for billionaire donors and special interests who want more influence over the GOP agenda and an invitation for corruption.”

“Republicans have failed the American people with a record that has ripped away health care and raised costs on families, and they know voters will hold them accountable in November — which is exactly why they are rewriting the rules in an effort to drown out the will of the voters by flooding elections with more money from their billionaire backers,” said the statement from DSCC Chair Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, DCCC Chair Rep. Suzan DelBene and DNC Chair Ken Martin.

“Democrats are fighting back for the American people, and in November, voters will reject Republicans’ toxic agenda and efforts to rig the system and weaken our democracy by electing a Democratic House and Senate majority,” they said.