Republicans ask Supreme Court to eliminate final campaign finance limits

The Supreme Court agreed to hear National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC on June 30, 2025. Vice President JVJD Vance originally filed this lawsuit as a Senate candidate in 2022. The case challenges spending limits between political parties and their candidates. Oral arguments happen fall 2025. The decision comes by June 2026, just months before midterm elections. CJChief Judge Jeffrey Sutton admitted 'serious tension' exists between recent First Amendment cases and the 2001 precedent. But the Sixth Circuit felt bound by Supreme Court authority to uphold the limits.

The Trump administration refuses to defend federal campaign finance law. The Justice Department filed a brief on May 19, 2025, supporting Republican challengers instead. They asked the Supreme Court to appoint someone else to defend the law. This marks an extraordinary break from DOJ tradition. Attorney General Pam Bondi argues the limits violate the First Amendment. Her position: political parties have the right to coordinate with their own candidates. The administration actively opposes the statute it's supposed to defend.

Current spending caps range from $127,000 for House races to $4 million for Senate contests. The amounts depend on voting-age population in each state. Congress adjusts them annually for inflation under the 1974 Federal Election Campaign Act. These limits are the final wall between unlimited corporate money and candidate campaigns. Citizens United already eliminated independent expenditure restrictions. Without coordination limits, wealthy donors could funnel unlimited cash through parties. They'd bypass individual contribution caps entirely.

Elon Musk spent $277 million electing Trump through super PACs in 2024. He gave $238.5 million to his personal America PAC. Another $20.5 million went to a mysterious RBG PAC that compared Trump to Ruth Bader Ginsburg on abortion. Federal Election Commission filings from December 2024 confirm the amounts. Musk became the single largest donor of the 2024 election cycle. His spending included $40.5 million paying voters to sign petitions. He also paid 18 people $1 million each as 'spokesperson consultants' in his controversial giveaway.

Mitch McConnell filed an amicus brief supporting unlimited party coordination. He fought McCain-Feingold reform for decades but now wants all limits gone. The Republican National Committee joined his brief. So did the National Republican Congressional Committee. Eighteen state Republican parties signed on too. Conservative legal groups piled on: Liberty Justice Center, American Center for Law and Justice, Institute for Free Speech. They all argue the First Amendment protects unlimited party-candidate coordination.

The 6-3 conservative Supreme Court has dismantled every campaign finance protection since 2010. Citizens United opened the floodgates that year. McCutcheon v. FEC struck down aggregate contribution limits in 2014. 🌵Arizona Free Enterprise Club v. Bennett killed public financing provisions in 2011. Only Clarence Thomas remains from the 2001 🏔️Colorado decision. He dissented then and will vote to overturn now. The Court created what reformers call a 'deregulation ratchet.' It only moves in one direction: less regulation.

Striking coordination limits would revolutionize American politics overnight. Political parties could accept unlimited corporate donations earmarked for specific candidates. A single billionaire could purchase an entire congressional delegation through party committees. The decision would complete Citizens United's transformation. It eliminates the last barrier between corporate treasuries and candidate campaigns. Direct quid pro quo arrangements become legal. What we once called corruption becomes protected speech.