...
By Robert Alexander
Senior Crime & Court Reporter
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 will hear a case this term that could reshape the rules governing how political parties support their candidates.
The National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) argues that federal limits on coordinated party expenditures violate the First Amendment by restricting a party’s ability to assist its nominees.
The Court agreed to take up the case in June, setting arguments for Tuesday, December 9, 2025.
Read More on News
Newsweek contacted the NRSC, Democratic National Committee and the Brennan Center for Justice for comment via email outside of normal office hours on Friday.
Why It Matters
The Supreme Court’s decision in NRSC v. FEC could upend longstanding rules governing how political parties fund their candidates, potentially allowing unlimited coordinated spending and weakening one of the last major federal safeguards against corruption.
By asking the Court to strike down limits on party–candidate coordination, the NRSC is pressing for a shift that would give national party committees far greater control over campaigns and accelerate the post–Citizens United trend of campaign-finance deregulation.
The ruling, expected next year, could reshape the flow of money and power in the 2026 and 2028 elections.
...
What To Know
This case is about whether political parties should be allowed to spend as much money as they want directly helping their chosen candidates, instead of following the current limits meant to prevent corruption.
At issue is 52 U.S.C. § 30116(d), which caps how much a party committee may spend in coordination with a candidate.
In its petition for certiorari [the process by which the U.S. Supreme Court chooses to review a lower-court decision], the NRSC contends that these caps “stand in serious tension with recent First Amendment doctrine,” citing the Sixth Circuit’s acknowledgment that the limits may not align with the Supreme Court’s post-Citizens United campaign-finance decisions.
Since Citizens United v. FEC (2010), the Supreme Court has taken a series of decisions that greatly narrowed the kinds of campaign-finance limits the government is allowed to impose.
The Court has repeatedly said that the only legitimate reason to restrict political money is to prevent quid-pro-quo corruption—basically, bribery or something close to it.
...
The NRSC petition further argues that only the Supreme Court can reassess whether FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee (2001)—a major Supreme Court decision that upheld federal limits on how much political parties may spend in coordination with their candidates, and the precedent upholding such limits [otherwise known as ‘Colorado II’]—remains valid.
The federal respondents, in their reply brief, similarly assert that the coordinated-expenditure limit is unconstitutional.
They argue the limit cannot satisfy the required scrutiny because it “does not advance a permissible interest” and prevents parties from engaging in core political expression alongside their nominees.
Public Citizen, in an amicus brief [a legal document filed by someone who is not a party to the case but wants to offer information, expertise, or arguments that might help the court decide the issues] supporting the FEC, warns that removing limits would “facilitate corruption by allowing large individual contributions to party committees to benefit candidates directly.”
The organization argues that wealthier donors could give large sums to parties with the expectation that coordinated spending would be routed to favored candidates, effectively circumventing contribution limits.
A coalition of states, led by the District of Columbia, similarly stresses that the current framework reflects long-standing federal and state approaches to curbing undue influence in elections.
Their brief states that coordinated-expenditure caps “properly preserve states’ authority to make individualized judgments about how best to combat political corruption.”
They caution that overturning Colorado II would jeopardize the stability of many state-level systems built on similar principles.
The NRSC’s Position
The NRSC argues that contemporary campaign finance realities undermine the rationale behind existing limits.
In its briefs, the committee asserts that changes since Colorado II—including the rise of outside groups that can spend unlimited amounts—mean that coordinated-expenditure limits “do not advance a permissible interest” and burden protected speech.
The petition emphasizes that political parties “exist to get [their] candidates elected,” and that restricting coordinated spending impedes that basic function.
...
Several Republican-aligned amici, including 14 states and various political organizations, argue that Colorado II is outdated.
The states’ brief in support of petitioners contends that recent Supreme Court decisions, such as McCutcheon v. FEC—a case challenging federal rules that capped the total amount a donor could give to all candidates, parties, and political action committees during a two-year election cycle—have set a different constitutional standard, and that “statutory amendments overtook Colorado II.”
The Bigger Picture
The case arrives amid a broader reevaluation of campaign-finance law triggered by Citizens United and subsequent rulings.
The dispute is part of “a broader trend of challenges to campaign finance regulations,” and a ruling for the NRSC could amount to “one of the most significant rollbacks of spending limits in decades.”
The Brennan Center for Justice, in its brief supporting respondents, situates the case within two decades of judicial decisions that have “diverged from the policy preferences of the American public,” arguing that Congress—not the Court—is best positioned to assess whether coordinated-spending rules remain effective.
Whatever the outcome, NRSC v. FEC will likely redefine the relationship between candidates and their parties—and could further reshape the landscape of American campaign finance.
In an email to Newsweek, Eric Petry, Brennan Center’s Campaign Finance Expert, warned that eliminating coordinated expenditure limits “increases the risk of bribery and corruption,” especially because, after recent legal and legislative changes, “individual donors can now give over $3.1 million to the party of their choice each election cycle.”
Without corresponding limits on what parties themselves may receive, he explained, donors could effectively use parties “to circumvent candidate contribution limits,” dismantling a longstanding safeguard against undue influence.
He emphasized that the campaign finance system already favors “the largest donors,” and allowing multimillion-dollar checks to be effectively earmarked for specific candidates would only worsen the problem, raising “concerns about corruption and undue access and influence.”
He situated the case within a broader pattern of Court rulings that have produced “an explosion of dark money,” “serious corruption scandals,” and “cratering public confidence in government,” arguing that these consequences show “how poorly suited judges are to making decisions about campaign finance regulations” compared with lawmakers who understand the real-world dynamics of campaigns.
What People Are Saying
U.S. Senators Sheldon Whitehouse, Chris Van Hollen, Richard Blumenthal, Adam Schiff, Mazie Hirono, and Cory Booker sitting senators are directly accusing the Supreme Court’s past rulings of enabling a wave of special-interest political power now threatening democratic integrity, from their brief filed in support of respondents: “Judicial decisions weakening campaign finance laws have unleashed unprecedented special interest influence in U.S. elections.”
Public Citizen’s amicus brief in support of intervenor-respondents issued a blunt, unequivocal warning that striking down the rule would open a direct channel for big-money donors to influence specific candidates: “Permitting unlimited party coordinated spending would facilitate corruption by allowing large individual contributions to party committees to benefit candidates directly.”
What Happens Next
The Supreme Court will hear NRSC v. FEC on Tuesday, December 9, 2025, after which the justices will deliberate and issue a ruling by June 2026 that could either preserve or fundamentally alter federal limits on how parties can coordinate spending with their candidates.
If the Court strikes down the limits, parties could engage in unlimited coordinated expenditures—expanding national party influence and raising concerns from opponents who warn this would allow large donations to flow more directly to candidates.
If the Court upholds the rules, the existing anti-corruption framework remains intact. The outcome will immediately shape how both parties plan and finance campaigns for the 2026 midterms.
Update 12/07/25, 5 p.m. ET: This article has been updated with comment from Ruben.
Update 12/08/25, 11:43 a.m. ET: This article has been updated correcting the surname of Eric Petry.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines