A few days ago, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission. This case will decide whether political parties may fully support their own nominees or must keep fighting with one hand tied behind their backs.
The plaintiffs in the case include the NRSC, the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), former Ohio Rep. Steve Chabot, and Vice President J.D. Vance, who joined the case during his Senate campaign and service. They argue that federal limits on “coordinated party expenditure” violate the First Amendment by restricting how much a party can spend with its own candidates.
Today, parties can speak freely only up to a government-set dollar amount. After that, the cost of speech on behalf of its candidates is treated as illegal excess contributions. Yet, here’s the paradox: there is no similar cap on expenditures by super PACs and other outside groups.
Super PACs can spend unlimited sums so long as they appear not to coordinate with any candidate. Consequently, the law muzzles the parties who are identified on ballots, while turning a blind eye to billionaire-funded megaphones broadcasting from the shadows.
This upside-down system is illogical and even contradicts more recent Supreme Court campaign-finance decisions. The Court has repeatedly held that the only legitimate basis for restricting political spending is preventing pay-offs for official favors, and not to level the playing field or reduce the “influence” of money in politics. That bribery-prevention argument, however, does not support the financial throttling of political parties. A party cannot bribe its own nominee; they rise or fall together.
The lower court in the NRSC v. FEC case noted that an old 2001 Supreme Court precedent upholding party spending limits is out of step with later rulings, but said only the Supreme Court can correct it. That is precisely what the justices should do.
The Republican National Committee (RNC), in a brief supporting the challengers, explained that these limits “directly affect the RNC’s ability to speak with and about its own nominees and to fulfill its core mission of winning elections.” RNC Chairman Joe Gruters put it plainly: “This case is about free speech and free association. Political parties should be free to support their own candidates but coordinated expenditure limits infringe that basic right.”
Those limits also tilt the playing field toward the Democrats, a party of billionaires and their socialist front men and women. When parties are financially gagged, campaigns must increasingly rely on independent pools of shadow money to finance campaigns. That model rewards candidates backed by a handful of wealthy patrons and punishes those whose chief assets are a compelling message and the confidence of their party’s voters and activists.
If coordinated caps fall, candidates of modest means who have persuaded their party they are the best standard-bearers will no longer be told, “Sorry, we’ve hit the legal limit.” Parties will still be subject to disclosure rules. Direct contributions to candidates will still be limited. Bribery will still be a crime. But what will change is that transparent, regulated political parties, not just obscure super PACs, can be primary vehicles for campaign speech. And as a result, we will get better candidates.
It is telling who rushed in to defend the current speech gag. The Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC), and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) have joined the case to prop up the limits. They chose Attorney Marc Elias as their champion at the Court, even though in 2021 the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals sanctioned Elias for wrongdoing in a prior election law case, and ordered him to pay thousands of dollars in sanctions and undergo ethics training. So, it seems the Democrats had to turn to a sanctioned lawyer to get someone to argue against more speech and stronger parties.
Supporters of the status quo warn darkly of corruption if parties may coordinate freely. But many states allow unlimited coordinated party spending, and there is no evidence of an epidemic of party-brokered bribes. Existing contribution limits, robust disclosure, and criminal law already give prosecutors and voters the tools they need to avoid actual bribery.
National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC is not about helping one party or one candidate. It is about whether Americans want campaigns dominated by shadowy independent groups and a few mega-donors, or by political parties that must answer to millions of ordinary voters. Striking down coordinated party expenditure limits would strengthen free speech, empower free parties, and open the door for free candidates, especially those who will bring ideas and courage, not inherited fortunes, to the fight.
