Supreme Court hears GOP bid to end party spending caps
The Supreme Court heard a GOP-backed challenge to federal limits on coordinated party expenditures — brought by then‑Senate candidate JD Vance, then‑Rep. Steve Chabot and the NRSC/NRCC — seeking to overturn 2023–24 cycle caps roughly $61,800–$123,000 for House races and $123,600–$3.7 million for Senate races. Justices Thomas, Alito and Kavanaugh signaled openness to striking the limits (with Kavanaugh warning that current rules have weakened parties relative to outside groups and Roberts calling the coordinated/direct distinction a “fiction”), while Sotomayor warned removal could enable corruption; during argument Thomas pressed Democratic lawyer Marc Elias on whether party payments are protected speech (Elias called such payments “symbolic speech” treated as contributions), the FEC under Trump agreed the limits should be struck, Roman Martinez was appointed to defend the law, and the Principal Deputy Solicitor General rejected the view that the caps were imposed solely to prevent corruption.
📌 Key Facts
- The Supreme Court heard a GOP-backed challenge to coordinated party expenditure caps for the 2023–24 cycle, which ranged from $61,800–$123,000 for House races and $123,600–$3.7 million for Senate races.
- Plaintiffs in the case include then‑Senate candidate J.D. Vance, then‑Rep. Steve Chabot, and the National Republican Senatorial and Congressional Committees (NRSC/NRCC).
- Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh signaled support for striking the limits; Kavanaugh emphasized that current law and prior decisions have weakened political parties relative to outside groups, noting donors can give "huge money" to outside groups but not to parties.
- Chief Justice John Roberts questioned the legal distinction between coordinated expenditures and direct contributions, calling that distinction a "fiction."
- Justice Thomas pressed Democratic operative Marc Elias on whether coordinated party expenditures — including routine campaign bills such as hotels or food — have First Amendment protection.
- Marc Elias argued a party paying a candidate’s bills is "symbolic speech" that is treated as a contribution and therefore subject to limits.
- Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned that removing the caps could enable corruption and allow donors to circumvent contribution limits.
- The Federal Election Commission under President Trump agreed the limits should be struck; Roman Martinez was appointed to defend the statute, and Principal Deputy Solicitor General Sarah Harris rejected the view that the caps were imposed solely to prevent corruption.
📊 Relevant Data
Since the 2010 Citizens United decision, outside spending in U.S. elections has escalated from $574 million in the 2008 cycle to nearly $4.5 billion in the 2024 cycle, with super PACs and hybrid PACs accounting for over $4.1 billion in 2024.
By the Numbers: 15 Years of Citizens United — OpenSecrets
Following Citizens United, the top 1 percent of donors provided 96 percent of all super PAC funds in 2018, and in 2024, 100 billionaire donors contributed a record $2.6 billion, making up nearly 20 percent of total election spending.
15 Years After Citizens United: Big Money’s Grip on Our Democracy — Roosevelt Institute
In states affected by Citizens United removing bans on independent spending, GOP state legislative and gubernatorial candidates’ electoral success increased by 4 to 11 percentage points, shifting state governments rightward.
15 Years After Citizens United: Big Money’s Grip on Our Democracy — Roosevelt Institute
In 2024, men contributed 67.69% of total political donations of $200 or more, while women contributed 32.31%, with men outnumbering women in high-value donations (e.g., 413 male vs 149 female donors giving $1,000,000+).
Donor Demographics — OpenSecrets
Black women, Asian American women, and Latinas each constituted only 1% of all money contributed to 2024 congressional candidates.
Are Resources the Answer? How gender, race/ethnicity, and financial resources shape political giving. — Center for American Women and Politics (CAWP)
As of 2023, White households held 84.2% of all U.S. wealth while comprising 66% of the population, compared to Black households owning 23.5% of the wealth of White households.
Racial Economic Inequality — Inequality.org
📰 Sources (3)
- Justice Clarence Thomas pressed Marc Elias on whether coordinated party expenditures (including paying routine campaign bills like hotels or food) have First Amendment protection.
- Marc Elias characterized a party paying a candidate’s bills as 'symbolic speech' that is treated as a contribution and therefore subject to limits.
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh explicitly warned that current law and prior decisions have weakened parties relative to outside groups, noting donors can give 'huge money' to outside groups but not to parties.
- CBS details the current coordinated party expenditure caps: $61,800–$123,000 for House races and $123,600–$3.7 million for Senate races in the 2023–24 cycle.
- Identifies the plaintiffs as then‑Senate candidate JD Vance, then‑Rep. Steve Chabot, and the NRSC/NRCC.
- Reports that Justices Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh signaled support for striking the limits, with Kavanaugh emphasizing that campaign‑finance rules have weakened political parties relative to outside groups.
- Notes Chief Justice Roberts questioned the distinction between coordinated expenditures and direct contributions, calling it a 'fiction.'
- Quotes Justice Sotomayor warning that removing the cap could enable corruption and donor circumvention of contribution limits.
- Confirms the FEC under President Trump agrees the limits should be struck and that Roman Martinez was appointed to defend the law; adds that Principal Deputy Solicitor General Sarah Harris rejected the view that the caps were imposed solely to prevent corruption.