NRSC v. FEC (2026)

The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended after Watergate, capped how much national and state party committees could spend in coordination with their own candidates for Congress and the presidency, treating such spending like a contribution. In FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee in 2001, the Supreme Court upheld those limits 5 to 4, reasoning that unlimited coordinated spending could let donors route money through parties to candidates. After Citizens United allowed unlimited independent spending by corporations, unions, and super PACs, parties argued they had been left at a disadvantage.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee and Republican candidates challenged the limits, and in 2024 the full Sixth Circuit upheld them, citing the 2001 precedent. The Supreme Court heard argument on December 9, 2025, and on June 30, 2026, it ruled 6 to 3 that the coordinated expenditure limits violate the First Amendment, holding that the government had not shown that coordinated spending by parties creates a real risk of quid pro quo corruption. Three justices dissented, warning that the decision would let large donors give through parties to benefit specific candidates.

The ruling took effect during the 2026 midterm campaign and freed party committees to pay for advertising and other expenses in direct cooperation with their nominees. Supporters said it restored the role of parties, which are accountable to voters and must disclose their donors, relative to super PACs and dark money groups. Critics said it reopened a channel for wealthy donors to evade contribution limits, since individuals may give far more to parties than to candidates. Contribution limits to candidates and parties themselves remain in place.