...
By Dan Gooding
Associate News Editor
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
The Supreme Court’s decision Tuesday to strike down limits on coordinated spending between political parties and candidates risks opening the floodgates to large donations and renewed political corruption, the court’s liberal justices warned in a dissent.
Writing for the three-justice minority, Justice Elena Kagan said the majority had "rewritten the rules" of campaign finance law, clearing the way for wealthy donors to effectively bypass existing contribution limits by routing money through political parties.
The 6-3 ruling, she argued, undermined decades of safeguards designed to prevent "quid pro quo" corruption, meaning direct exchanges of money for political favors, and could have sweeping consequences for U.S. elections.
Read More on Politics
Kagan closed her dissent with a stark warning about the consequences of the court’s decision.
"By holding otherwise, the majority ushers in untold harm," she wrote.
What the Case Was About
The case, National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, centered on longstanding federal limits on "coordinated expenditures," meaning money political parties spend in cooperation with candidates, such as joint advertising campaigns or other shared campaign activity.
Under the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), parties could make such coordinated expenditures only up to specified limits, which varied by office and state.
Supporters of the law argued those caps were necessary to prevent donors from circumventing contribution limits by routing money through parties rather than giving directly to candidates.
The majority rejected that rationale, finding that other mechanisms—such as contribution caps, earmarking rules and disclosure requirements—already address corruption risks without restricting political speech.
...
Reacting to the ruling, President Donald Trump posted to Truth Social, "The Supreme Court just took restrictions off political spending! A BIG WIN FOR REPUBLICANS and, more importantly, The First Amendment!"
Trump was joined by fellow Republicans in celebrating the decision, with National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman Tim Scott of South Carolina and National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Richard Hudson of North Carolina also declaring it a First Amendment victory.
"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," Scott and Hudson wrote in a joint statement. "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. We are ready to fully support our candidates and put them in the strongest possible position to win in 2026 and beyond."
‘Rewriting the Rules’ of Campaign Finance
Kagan, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, said the majority’s decision fundamentally alters how campaign finance law operates.
"The Court rewrites the rules, to allow circumvention of the contribution limits," she wrote.
Her dissent argues that without coordinated spending caps, donors can effectively bypass strict limits on direct contributions by giving large sums to political parties, which can then spend the money on a candidate’s behalf.
In practical terms, she warned, the decision turns parties into "an alternative checking account for a campaign," allowing money to flow more freely into candidate operations.
Michael S. Kang, a professor focused on campaign finance at the Northwestern Pritzker School of Law, told Newsweek that the current court had "transformationally deregulated campaign finance" over the last two decades, meaning Tuesday's decision was not surprising.
"Today’s party coordinated spending decision allows parties to work more closely with candidates and strengthens parties, at the margin, vis a vis outside groups like Super PACs," Kang said. "I think it is easy to overstate how much today’s decision will help parties counteract the influence of outside groups, but it should help to some degree."
Related Story
Trump Had a Feeling SCOTUS Would Rule Against Him on Birthright Citizenship
Related Story
Map Shows States Banning Transgender Athletes as Supreme Court Rules
Risk of Renewed Corruption
At the core of the dissent is a stark warning that the ruling revives the same corruption risks Congress sought to prevent after the Watergate era. By eliminating limits on coordinated expenditures, Kagan said, the court allows donors to channel far more money into campaigns than the law otherwise permits, raising the possibility of direct exchanges of money for political favors.
The decision, she wrote, "ushers back in the same opportunities for quid pro quo corruption" that existing contribution limits were designed to check.
Even absent explicit deals, Kagan argued, the system will create powerful incentives and public perceptions that political access and influence can be bought.
Kagan's concerns were echoed by political reform group Issue One, with director of money in politics reform Michael Beckel saying in a statement shared with Newsweek that this was the latest in a string of "disastrous campaign finance rulings" by the current court.
"Voters across the political spectrum want legislators to be able to implement anti-corruption safeguards related to the immense amounts of money in politics," Beckel said. "By eliminating the limits that have long governed how much money parties can spend in coordination with candidates, the Supreme Court has further empowered wealthy donors and special interests with outsized influence in elections."
...
Criticism of the Majority’s Safeguards
Kagan rejected the majority’s reliance on other campaign finance rules as insufficient to prevent abuse. Disclosure requirements, she argued, provide transparency but do not stop corruption or eliminate the incentives behind large donations.
"Corruption [is] inherent in a system permitting unlimited financial contributions, even when the identities of the contributors…are fully disclosed," she wrote, citing prior precedent.
Similarly, she said rules governing "earmarked" donations—those explicitly directed to a specific candidate—fail to capture the more common ways donors can influence campaigns through party structures without formal instructions.
What it Could Mean for Voters
For voters, the ruling could reshape how campaigns are funded and how influence is perceived in elections.
The Supreme Court’s decision allows political parties to spend unlimited amounts in coordination with their candidates, removing a long-standing cap that limited how closely money raised by parties could directly support individual campaigns.
Kang said that the decision also currently helps Republicans more than Democrats, as the GOP had outraised the Democratic Party, despite some Democrat advantages, adding that, "today’s decision helps level up Republican candidates with more party help."
"In addition, Republicans wanted this outcome from the Court because it likely will allow parties, when they coordinate with candidates, to get candidate rates in buying ads and therefore help them make better use of their party money advantage," Kang said.
For voters, the impact may be less immediately visible but still significant. Campaigns could become more heavily funded and better resourced, particularly in competitive races, as parties gain new flexibility to support candidates with coordinated advertising and campaign infrastructure.
But the dissent highlights a different risk: public trust. Kagan argued the decision could erode confidence in the political system by creating the appearance, or reality, of large donors gaining access or influence.
Contact Newsweek editors on this story: Gabe Whisnant and Sam Wilson.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines