On June 30, the Supreme Court ruled that a political party can spend unlimited money in coordination with its own candidates. Four months later, both parties are using the new rules, and a separate dispute over who gets the lowest price on a TV ad has been to the Supreme Court twice. This issue covers what changed in NRSC v. FEC, how the party committees have spent, the ad-rate fight, and the case each side makes. For the full history of the ruling, see Issue #15.
In NRSC v. FEC, the Court ruled 6-3 that limits on party coordinated spending violate the First Amendment. It overruled Colorado II (2001). For 2026, the limits ran from $130,600 to about $4.07 million in Senate races, depending on a state’s population, and from $65,300 to $130,600 in House races.
Contribution limits, the rule that earmarked gifts count as gifts to the candidate, and disclosure requirements all remain. The Court said those rules together address the government’s anti-circumvention concerns.
The practical change is structural. Party committees used to run a walled-off independent spending arm to go past the cap. They no longer need one. The NRSC said it is retiring its independent expenditure unit and will run most voter contact as coordinated spending, planned with campaigns.
Reuters, tallying party filings with the FEC, found that Republican committees spent more than $126 million above the old limits and Democratic committees more than $46 million above them. Coordinated spending from July through September came to about $137 million for Republicans and about $55 million for Democrats, nearly eight times the same months of 2022.
The NRSC has reported roughly $46 million in coordinated spending for Senate candidates, led by Ohio and Iowa. The NRCC has put nearly $9 million into coordinated TV ads across more than 20 House races, according to Axios.
The DCCC began behind the NRCC on coordinated spending. In the week of September 21 it spent $8 million across 26 districts, with new ads alongside candidates in 14 and added support for existing ads in the other 12. Punchbowl News reported it was the first week the committee invested in more offensive than defensive seats.
The NRSC said in a June memo that the ruling would be “asymmetric” because Republican committees had outraised Democratic ones. Democratic strategist Sawyer Hackett told ABC News that his party was caught unprepared. The law applies equally to both parties.
Federal law says a station cannot charge a legally qualified candidate more than its lowest unit charge for the same time slot. The discount applies for 60 days before a general election. On March 30, the FCC’s Media Bureau said the discount also covers coordinated party-candidate ads and joint fundraising committees. The NRSC says coordinated buys at that rate cost 3 to 13 times less than what outside groups pay.
Four Democratic congressional candidates sued. Here is what followed:
August 25. A divided Fourth Circuit panel set the FCC notice aside, 2-1.
September 4. The Supreme Court stayed that ruling over Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissent. It was the day the 60-day general election window opened.
October 7. The Fourth Circuit ordered the FCC to rule on the candidates’ challenge by October 9.
October 8. Chief Justice John Roberts paused that order.
October 14. The full Court, in an unsigned five-page opinion, kept it paused. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Jackson indicated they would have denied the request.
The Court has not decided whether parties are entitled to the discount. The challenge before the FCC has no deadline, and the parties keep the rate through Election Day.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s majority held that the cap duplicated protections that already exist. A donor still faces the base contribution limit, earmarking rules block directing money to a chosen candidate, and spending is disclosed.
Some reformers back the outcome for a different reason. The opinion cited campaign-finance scholars Bob Bauer and Rick Pildes, who wrote that “many in the political reform community support an end to the limits.” Their argument is that caps pushed donors toward super PACs, which answer to no one. A party has a name, a disclosure schedule and a reputation. The NRSC also argues that states without such limits have not produced documented corruption.
On rates, Republican committees and the FCC argue that charging parties more for the same ad time restricts political speech. Candidates have an advantage, and parties act as their partners.
Justice Elena Kagan’s dissent warned that a party can now serve as “an alternative checking account for a campaign.” A donor at the contribution limit can give a party more, and the party can spend it in lockstep with the same candidate. The Campaign Legal Center said the ruling turns parties into “conduits for big donors.”
On rates, the Democratic challengers argue that “legally qualified candidate” in the statute means candidates, not their parties. Anna Gomez, the FCC’s lone Democratic commissioner, called the guidance “unofficial and unlawful.” She warned that local stations, many already under financial pressure, would absorb much of the cost. Campaign finance groups also warned that joint fundraising committees could give super PACs indirect access to candidate-level rates.
1. The FCC. The candidates’ challenge is pending, and nothing requires a decision before Election Day.
2. The Supreme Court. A petition on the underlying rate question is not due until late November, so it will likely outlast the election.
3. The filings. Post-election FEC reports will show how much each committee coordinated, and where.
Both sides agree on the law as it stands. Party committees can coordinate without limit, and both have started. They disagree on what that means. Supporters see parties that are disclosed and accountable, competing fairly with outside groups. Critics see a second route for large donors and a discount designed for candidates stretched to cover their allies. The Court has settled the first question and left the second open.
A law professor argues that money has bent Congress away from the people, and what to do about it. Read it alongside this week’s issue and decide for yourself.
Find it on Amazon →As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.