The US Supreme Court is set to hear a significant Republican-led challenge questioning whether federal limits on coordinated campaign spending violate First Amendment free-speech protections. The case involves JD Vance and several Republican committees who argue that current restrictions unfairly limit political parties’ ability to work with candidates they support. These limits apply only to spending that is coordinated between candidates and party committees, not to independent expenditures, which remain unlimited.
A lower court previously upheld the restrictions, concluding they were necessary to prevent donors from using political parties as channels to bypass individual contribution limits. Court-appointed lawyer Roman Martinez is defending the law, arguing that removing these limits could enable donors to route additional funds through parties, raising the risk of corruption. The challengers, however, contend that the rules amount to unconstitutional “speech rationing” and restrict political advocacy.
The spending caps vary by state population and can range from tens of thousands to several million dollars. Republican plaintiffs want the Federal Election Commission barred from enforcing these limits, while Democratic committees have intervened in support of the existing rules. The Supreme Court’s decision could reshape how parties and candidates coordinate campaign resources, building on earlier rulings that have gradually weakened campaign finance restrictions.