WASHINGTON, DC — Today, in a 6-3 ruling, the US Supreme Court issued yet another troubling decision that will open the door to the corrupting influence of more big money in our political system. This case was brought by the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), which sought to strike down limits on coordinated political party spending upheld in the Court’s landmark 2001 Colorado II decision. Today, the Court overturned this 25-year-old precedent to remove these limits and turn parties into conduits for huge contributions to benefit individual candidates.
The League of Women Voters, Campaign Legal Center, and Common Cause joined together and filed an amicus brief in 2025 in NRSC v. Federal Election Commission with the Supreme Court. The brief emphasized the importance of maintaining the limits on how much money a political party can spend in coordination with a candidate, a key provision for limiting the ability of wealthy special interests to sidestep contribution limits and corrupt the electoral process.
"As an organization committed to protecting a free and fair democracy, the League strongly condemns today’s ruling, which dismantles decades-long protections against coordinated spending in campaigns," said Celina Stewart, CEO of the League of Women Voters. "By eliminating these critical guardrails, the Court has opened the floodgates to unlimited political spending that will drown out the voices of everyday Americans. This ruling is the latest in a troubling pattern of decisions that prioritize wealthy interests over democracy's health. The League will continue to fight to enforce essential safeguards that curb the influence of money in politics and protect voters from corrosive effects."
"Our elections are already weighed down by the corrosive influence of big money expenditures. This Supreme Court ruling creates yet more opportunities for wealthy donors and special interests to drown out the voices of Americans while directing big money to their favored candidates. The Court has again made a major mistake in a campaign finance case — and it has punched a new hole in our ailing patchwork of campaign finance regulations overseen by a dysfunctional Federal Election Commission," said Trevor Potter, president and founder of the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center and former Republican chairman of the Federal Election Commission. "Striking down these limits will enable wealthy individuals to give huge sums to party committees with every expectation that the money will be spent directly to benefit their preferred candidates. Unfortunately, American voters will be the ones who pay the greatest price."
"It is no surprise this Supreme Court has ruled that the wealthy should have a louder voice than the people, because this court has been ruling for the wealthy for decades," said Virgina Kase Solomón, president and CEO of Common Cause. "By striking down these common-sense limits, the court has invited even more corruption into our elections and further tilted the scales against the American people. This decision is a direct assault on the promise of a multiracial democracy where every person’s voice should matter, regardless of the size of their wallet. Common Cause and our 1 million members will continue to fight until our government is once again accountable to 'We the People.'"
Federal law has long considered the money a donor spends at the direction or suggestion of a federal candidate to be the equivalent of a contribution to that candidate, as this type of "coordinated" spending is "as useful to the candidate as cash." A coordinated expenditure is consequently subject to federal contribution limits and reporting requirements to ensure that it does not corrupt candidates in the same way a large contribution might.
For over 50 years, these limits on party coordinated spending have served as an important tool to prevent corruption, ensuring that party committees do not serve as a mechanism for wealthy special interests to circumvent individual contribution limits and direct large contributions to candidates.
Contribution limits are at the heart of federal campaign finance law, particularly the Federal Election Campaign Act. Without limits on coordination, contribution limits become essentially meaningless.
###