Supreme Court scraps check on money in politics at request of Vance, GOP

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on June 30 ditched one of the remaining checks on money in politics, a decision in line with recent rulings favoring free speech rights over fears about potential corruption.

Overruling a quarter-century-old decision, the high court sided 6-3 with Republicans – including Vice President JD Vance – who challenged a more than 50-year-old rule capping how much parties can spend in coordination with candidates.

The rule – aimed at preventing wealthy donors from bypassing limits on what they can give federal candidates by funneling money through political parties − was passed in 1974 as part of Congress' response to the Watergate scandal and upheld by the Supreme Court in 2001.

The court's decision may benefit the GOP, at least in the short run, because Democratic candidates have not relied as much on financial help from political parties as they've been better at attracting small-dollar donations.

And advocates fighting the influence of deep-pocketed donors fear Republicans will use their victory to go after the remaining campaign finance restrictions.

Writing for the court's conservative majority, Justice Brett Kavanaugh said the decision "treats all political parties equally."

Both parties can now "participate more freely and compete more fully in the political process," he wrote.

Rejecting concerns about potential corruption, Kavanaugh said there are other checks to prevent that, including disclosure rules.

In dissent, Justice Elena Kagan said the majority "jettisons a rule needed to protect our democracy's integrity."

High court has chipped away at limits

The Supreme Court has been chipping away at spending and contribution limits, ruling they are improper restrictions on "political speech" under the First Amendment. Major decisions include a 2010 ruling in a case called Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which paved the way for the creation of independent political action committees known as "super PACs."

Republicans argued that leading donors have since turned to super PACs because they can receive unlimited donations. That has turned super PACs into "shadow parties," diminishing the role of the actual political parties, the GOP said.

And Republicans said there's no evidence that restricting how much parties can spend in consultation with a candidate prevents corruption.

"That's why no one has identified a single case in which a donor has actually laundered a bribe to a candidate through a party's coordinated spending, even though 28 states allow it," Noel Francisco, the lawyer representing the GOP, told the court during oral arguments in December.

Democrats backed limits

But Marc Elias, an attorney for the Democratic Party, said getting rid of the limits would leave little protection against donors seeking favors.

Both parties and super PACs can spend as much as they want to help a candidate as long as they don't coordinate with the candidate.

Parties could also spend limited amounts at the direction of candidates.

When a party pays for an ad at the request of a candidate, the court said in its 2001 decision upholding the coordinated spending limit, that expenditure has the same effect as a direct contribution to the candidate. It can, therefore, be regulated.

And because donors can give more to parties than they can to candidates, donors might use parties to get around the lower limits, increasing the possibility that a backer might expect something in return for the support, the court previously ruled.

Trump's Justice Department backed the challenge

Republicans took on that decision in 2022 in a challenge Vance initiated when he was running for the Senate. Others involved in that effort included then-Rep. Steve Chabot, the National Republican Senatorial Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee.

The Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the challenge, saying its hands were tied by the high court's 2001 decision upholding the law.

The Department of Justice backed the campaign finance rule during the Biden administration but switched sides after President Donald Trump returned to the White House.

As a result, the Supreme Court appointed a lawyer, Roman Martinez, to defend the appeal court's decision.

Another solution: a court-ordered off-ramp

Martinez argued, in part, that the court could avoid ruling on what he called a "highly politicized case."

Because courts are only supposed to decide live controversies, the court doesn't need to get involved now, he said, because there's no imminent threat that the federal government will enforce the limits on coordinated expenditures.

"No one thinks President Trump is going to enforce this law and target his own vice president," Martinez said during oral arguments in National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission.

Other election cases

The case is one of several the court decided this term that could affect the 2026 midterm elections.

The justices already handed down a blockbuster decision gutting a key provision of the Voting Rights Act and issued a ruling that made it easier for candidates to challenge voting laws.

And a majority said states can count mailed ballots that are postmarked by Election Day but arrive after.

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Supreme Court scraps check on money in politics at request of Vance, GOP

Reporting by Maureen Groppe, USA TODAY / USA TODAY

USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect

Copyright Reuters or USA Today Network via Reuters Connect

This story was originally published June 30, 2026 at 9:02 AM.