Supreme Court questions limits on political party spending in federal elections, hearing GOP appeal

Conservative Supreme Court justices on Tuesday signaled support for a Republican effort to eliminate restrictions on how much political parties can spend in coordination with congressional and presidential candidates, potentially overturning a 25-year-old legal precedent.

The case marks another instance where the court’s conservative majority appears poised to reshape campaign finance laws. Just one day earlier, the same justices indicated they would likely reverse a 90-year-old precedent limiting presidential power to dismiss independent agency heads.

The current challenge originated in Ohio and notably includes Vice President JD Vance among its plaintiffs. Vance joined the Republican challenge when he was serving as an Ohio senator. During Tuesday’s arguments, questions arose about whether Vance’s potential presidential ambitions in 2028 should factor into the court’s decision.

During two hours of spirited debate, the justices displayed familiar ideological divisions on campaign finance issues. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who dissented in the landmark Citizens United case, cautioned that judicial interference with congressional campaign finance regulations has repeatedly worsened the situation.

“Every time we interfere with the congressional design, we make matters worse,” Sotomayor said.

Justice Samuel Alito offered a starkly different perspective, defending the controversial 2010 Citizens United ruling that allowed unlimited independent political spending by corporations and unions. “Much maligned, I think unfairly maligned,” Alito said of the decision, arguing it “leveled the playing field” by extending spending rights previously limited to media companies.

The current restrictions on party spending were designed to prevent wealthy donors from circumventing individual contribution limits by funneling unlimited money to parties with the understanding it would benefit specific candidates. Republican committees for House and Senate candidates filed the lawsuit challenging these limits in 2022, with Vance and then-Representative Steve Chabot joining as plaintiffs.

Attorney Noel Francisco, representing Republican interests, argued the court should view these restrictions skeptically because they conflict with recent Supreme Court decisions expanding campaign finance freedoms. The Federal Election Commission, which changed its position on the issue during the Trump administration, also advocated for striking down the limits.

While Democrats support maintaining the law, there is widespread acknowledgment across the political spectrum that these spending limits have weakened political parties compared to outside groups that can raise and spend unlimited funds following Citizens United.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh highlighted this contradiction, noting: “You can give huge money to the outside group, but you can’t give huge money to the party. And so the parties are very much weakened compared to the outside group.”

The ideological split on the bench was evident, with Alito, Kavanaugh, and Justice Clarence Thomas expressing skepticism about the limits, while the court’s three liberal justices signaled support for upholding them. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch gave fewer indications of their positions.

When the Trump administration aligned with Republicans seeking to invalidate the campaign finance law, the Supreme Court appointed experienced advocate Roman Martinez to defend it. Martinez offered the justices a potential off-ramp, suggesting they could avoid deciding the case altogether because Vance’s claim might be moot given his current role and uncertain future political plans. However, the justices showed little interest in this approach.

Under current law, coordinated party spending for Senate races in 2025 would range from $127,200 in smaller states to nearly $4 million in California. House race limits are set at $127,200 in states with only one representative and $63,600 in all other districts.

This case represents the latest challenge to campaign finance regulations in an era where the Supreme Court has increasingly viewed spending restrictions as First Amendment concerns. A decision is expected by the end of the court’s term in June and could fundamentally reshape how political parties finance campaigns in future elections.