Washington, DC — This week, the League of Women Voters (LWV) and Common Cause, alongside Campaign Legal Center (CLC) submitted an amicus brief to the US Supreme Court, which urges the Justices to uphold party coordinated spending limits in the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) v. FEC case.   

The National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) is challenging critical, long-standing limits on how much money political parties can spend in “coordination” with federal candidates. The US Supreme Court upheld these limits in 2001 as an important barrier to preventing donors from funneling massive amounts of funds to the candidates of their choosing through political parties. 

A key principle of campaign finance law, reinforced by the Court, is that an expenditure that is “coordinated” with a candidate is functionally the same as a contribution given directly to the candidate. Therefore, limits on both are important to preventing quid pro quo corruption in our federal elections. 

“What’s at stake in this case is the very integrity of our elections," said Celina Stewart, CEO of the League of Women Voters. “Lifting limits on coordinated party spending would open the door to more corruption that ultimately allows big money to drown out the voices of everyday Americans. In a time when money already plays an outsized role in our politics, removing this safeguard would be yet another step towards total deregulation of campaign finance. The League proudly supports this limit as a crucial protection for fair and accountable elections.” 

“For over 50 years, party coordinated spending limits have been integral to reducing the corruptive impact of large contributions moving through party committees to candidates and potentially facilitating quid pro quo exchanges between donors and candidates,” said Tara Malloy, senior litigation strategist at Campaign Legal Center. 

“As the amount of money being raised and spent in elections continues to rise and break records — and campaign finance violations remain unchecked due to poor enforcement of the law by the Federal Election Commission — it is crucial that the Supreme Court upholds the constitutionality of federal limits.” 

"The size of your wallet should never determine the size of your voice in an election about the future," said Omar Noureldin, senior vice president of Policy and Litigation at Common Cause. "When big money flows unchecked in our politics, everyday people suffer. Spending limits are the last line of defense to prevent our elections from becoming auctioned to the highest bidder." 

CLC first filed an amicus brief with Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) in support of federal limits back in 2024 in the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. That court upheld these limits last year.  

Now the Supreme Court will decide whether to maintain its own 2001 ruling in FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee — known as the “Colorado II” decision — that affirmed the constitutionality of these limits. At that time, the Court expressed concern that removing these limits would provide donors with the opportunity to bypass individual contribution limits by funneling larger sums through the parties in order to buy influence with candidates and officeholders. 

Voters need to have confidence that wealthy special interests cannot simply buy influence and political favors by routing big contributions through political parties. Our nation’s highest court should affirm the limits on coordinated spending by political parties in order to protect our democracy. 

###