A decades-old law limiting how much money political parties can spend in coordination with candidates was struck down by the Supreme Court on June 30, 2026. Citing First Amendment principles, the court held in NRSC v. FEC that the limit unduly prevented political parties from “freely” and “fully” advocating for their respective nominees. The case marks the Roberts court’s latest chapter in a 20-year trajectory toward a more deregulated campaign finance system.

While not the earth-shattering decision that was Citizens United, the 2010 ruling that struck down limits on corporate and union campaign spending as a violation of their free speech, NRSC v. FEC is still significant. And it has the potential to materially reshape the American political process going forward.

Indeed, campaign finance regulation is a cornerstone of a healthy democracy. Some political theorists even contend that the private funding of campaigns is antithetical to core democratic principles of integrity, equality and responsiveness to voters.

Campaign spending: Freedom or corruption?

At a minimum, it is broadly agreed upon – and observed – that reining in money in politics is necessary to curb all-out corruption, where the wealthy are able to donate unlimited sums of money to politicians in exchange for favors.

The U.S. Supreme Court has historically upheld restrictions on political spending only if they furthered this anti-corruption goal – the idea being that fighting corruption is a compelling enough reason to limit political expression and association conducted via the dollar.

Modern-day discussion of U.S. campaign finance revolves around issues such as dark money, outside-group spending and corporate personhood. Political party spending, by contrast, receives comparatively little attention from scholars, activists and the media.

This asymmetry is not entirely without warrant. Political party spending used to dominate election cycles, with parties sometimes even outspending their own candidates.

In 2000, for example, the Republican National Committee and Democratic National Committee combined spent more money on television ads supporting Texas Gov. George Bush and Vice President Al Gore than the candidates’ own campaigns did.

Over the past two decades, however,........

© The Conversation