Supreme Court Strikes Down Limits on Political Party Spending

Law Supreme Court Strikes Down Limits on Political Party Spending June 30, 202610:28 AM ET By  Grady Martin ,  Nina Totenberg the U.S. Supreme Court Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images hide caption toggle caption Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images The Supreme Court yet again loosened campaign finance restrictions on Tuesday by striking down limits on how much political parties may raise and spend on candidates. By a 6-to-3 vote along ideological lines, the court ruled the law, which had been enacted in 1974, violates political parties' First Amendment rights. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion. At issue in the case was a post-Watergate law that Congress passed to limit the amount of money individuals can give to political parties. The law, the Federal Election Campaign Act, also limited how much money political parties can spend on their candidates. Other types of organizations, like political action committees and Super PACs, have no limits on the amount of money they can raise and spend on elections. But unlike parties, they cannot coordinate with candidates. Sponsor Message Tuesday's decision means that parties get the best of both worlds. They can both coordinate with candidates and raise unlimited funds. Republicans, including Vice President JD Vance and the National Republican Senatorial Committee, challenged the law as an unconstitutional violation of political parties' First Amendment right to raise and spend money on their candidates. Backed by the Trump Justice Department, they contended that the only justification for imposing a fundraising limit on parties is to prevent corruption, but they maintained that there is no evidence the law has prevented corruption. This decision overturns a 2001 Supreme Court case that declared the limits on party spending to be constitutional. It's the latest in a series of rulings since then that have unraveled campaign finance regulations. The saga began in 2010, when the court ruled in Citizens United that...