WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court lifted limits Tuesday on how much political parties can spend on advertising and other expenses in coordination with candidates.

The 6-3 decision, divided along ideological lines, is a major victory for Republicans and could undercut one of the Democrats’ financial advantages going into the midterms.

The question before the justices was whether current federal limits on such spending — called coordinated party expenditures — violate the First Amendment. During oral arguments, Noel J. Francisco, a lawyer for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which brought the legal challenge, told the justices that such limits were “at war” with previous decisions by the court that have found that restricting how money can be spent in politics amounts to limiting speech.

The Republican groups had argued that such spending is necessary to allow political parties to spread their message.

The Trump administration had supported the Republican groups, asserting in court filings that the federal law “abridges the freedom of speech” under the court’s “recent First Amendment and campaign finance precedents.”

The coordinated spending case is the latest in a series of efforts to chip away at campaign finance regulations that were enacted after Watergate to lessen the influence of money in elections. In 2010, the Supreme Court struck down limits on independent spending by corporations and unions in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. That decision cleared the way for a flood of new money to enter politics and set the stage for further challenges to spending limits.

The coordinated spending case had been closely watched as the midterm elections approached.

Experts said the decision would immediately cut into one of the Democratic Party’s critical financial advantages in television advertising. That’s because federal law requires that television broadcasters give political candidates low advertising rates, but extends no such requirement to super political action committees, which are often charged double, triple and even four times as much for the same television time.

Republicans in recent election cycles have been more reliant on super PACs and national party committees than Democrats, whose candidates have tended to outraise Republicans and who therefore often have been able to take advantage of the lower television ad rates.

Allowing unlimited coordinated spending between candidates and parties would essentially permit both to take advantage of the lower rates.

The case began in 2022, when JD Vance, then a candidate for the Senate in Ohio, sued to challenge the campaign coordination limits. He was joined by several Republican groups. The Biden administration defended the limits, and a panel of federal judges agreed they were legal.

After President Donald Trump returned to office, the federal government flipped sides in the case and backed the Republicans challenging the spending caps.

With the government no longer defending the spending limits, the justices appointed veteran Supreme Court litigator Roman Martinez to argue on their behalf. He argued the justices should dismiss the case as moot because Vance is no longer running for office.

Democratic groups intervened in the case, urging the court to uphold the spending limits. They warned that overturning the law would create a system in which political parties would pay candidates’ expenses for everything from flower arrangements to electric bills.

—

This article originally appeared in The New York Times.

By Abbie VanSickle and Adam Liptak/Jon Cherry
c. 2026 The New York Times Company