Supreme Court Opens New Avenue for Big Money to Buy Favor with Candidates

In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision today in the major campaign finance case known as National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, also called NRSC v. FEC, Issue One released the following statement.

“The U.S. Supreme Court has opened a new avenue for wealthy donors and special interests to buy favor with political candidates,” warned Issue One Director of Money in Politics Reform Michael Beckel.

“Today’s decision follows a string of disastrous campaign finance rulings from the Roberts Court that began with Citizens United and have left our political system awash in large contributions that most Americans could never dream of giving. Voters across the political spectrum want legislators to be able to implement anti-corruption safeguards related to the immense amounts of money in politics. By eliminating the limits that have long governed how much money parties can spend in coordination with candidates, the Supreme Court has further empowered wealthy donors and special interests with outsized influence in elections.”

Background:

When political parties spend money to aid a federal candidate, they can do so in one of two ways — either by coordinating with that candidate or not coordinating and spending the money independently. There are no limits on how much money a party committee can spend independently to aid a candidate, but there have long been limits — indexed to inflation — on how much money a party committee can spend in a coordinated fashion with a candidate.

In 2001, in a case known as FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee (sometimes referred to as Colorado II), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld these limits, determining that coordinated spending is functionally equivalent to direct campaign contributions, meaning that limits can guard against corruption and the appearance of corruption.

The limit for the 2025-2026 election cycle had been $65,300 for most House candidates, except in states that have a single representative in the House of Representatives, where the limit was $130,600. For Senate candidates, the limit ranged from $130,600 to roughly $4 million, depending on the state’s voting age population.

These limits have now been overturned, meaning we’re likely to see far more large ad buys on behalf of candidates paid for by party committees, which can accept larger contributions from wealthy donors.

Candidates can currently collect campaign contributions up to $3,500 per person per election, with the primary and general elections counting as separate elections, for a total of $7,000 per election cycle.

On the other hand, national party committees (like the NRSC, DSCC, NRCC, DCCC, RNC, and DNC) can collect contributions up to $44,300 per year. On top of that, donors can give an additional $132,900 per year to the parties for special funds dedicated to things like building operations and legal expenses. All told, a donor can give up to $310,100 per year to a party committee like the NRSC or DSCC, or $620,200 per election cycle.

# # #

Issue One is the leading crosspartisan political reform group in Washington, D.C. We unite Republicans, Democrats, and independents in the movement to fix our broken political system and build an inclusive democracy that works for everyone.