WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court appeared set to further loosen limits on campaign finance, despite opposition from liberal justices during oral arguments Tuesday.
The case challenges limits on how much political parties can spend in coordination with candidates, most of which goes toward advertisements. It would overturn a 2001 precedent known as Colorado II that upheld longstanding coordinated expenditure limits.
In recent years, the Court has struck down many such restrictions — most notably in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in 2010, which gave rise to numerous political action committees by allowing corporations to spend unlimited amounts in elections.
And this latest case, National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC, could continue the trend.
“NRSC is just one of a long chain of cases that have all chipped away at or taken a blow at campaign finance law,” said Tara Malloy, senior litigation strategist at Campaign Legal Center, which filed an amicus brief on behalf of the respondents.
The plaintiffs include the NRSC as well as the National Republican Congressional Committee, former Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) and then-Ohio Senator and current Vice President JD Vance. They sued the FEC in 2022, arguing coordinated expenditure limits violated the First Amendment.
Noel Francisco, arguing for the petitioners, said the changed campaign landscape since Colorado II has weakened political parties relative to PACs. He told justices due to coordinated expenditure limits on political parties, donors give money to PACs instead.
“That actually has many dangers to our democracy,” Francisco said. “Political parties serve a moderating influence by forcing, essentially, compromises within a party in order to put forward a platform and to put forward candidates, whereas PACs and super PACs can often be focused on narrower issues.”
That sentiment received support from conservative voices on the bench, especially Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who said the discrepancy was a “real concern. “
Yet Francisco faced resistance from the three liberal justices. Sonia Sotomayor echoed the respondent’s primary argument that unlimited campaign expenditures lead to quid pro quo corruption.
“Once we take off this coordinated expenditure limit, then what’s left?” Sotomayor said. “What’s left is nothing. No control whatsoever.”
Francisco said even without coordinated expenditure restrictions, other guardrails would remain to prevent quid pro quo corruption.
Roman Martinez, the court-appointed amicus who argued for the respondents, called the petitioners’ challenge a “bait-and-switch” aimed at loosening campaign purse strings as a whole.
“They’re going to keep litigating to knock down every single one of the restrictions,” Martinez said.
But Associate Justice Samuel Alito dismissed those concerns.
“I did not hear Mr. Francisco say that he has a plan to attack other provisions,” Alito said. “Maybe he does. Maybe it’s predictable that he would, but we have one provision before us today, right, so don’t we have to decide this case and not speculate about what might come later?”
A ruling in the petitioners’ favor wouldn’t come as a surprise to Institute for Free Speech senior attorney Brett Nolan, who co-authored the IFS’ amicus brief in support of the petitioners.
“I don’t think that this is a court that, on these kinds of issues, is afraid of overruling precedent,” Nolan said.
The court is expected to rule on the case by summer 2026.
