Client Resources

On its final decision day of the term, June 30, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court announced that it was overruling its two-decade old precedent and discarding federal limits on coordinated expenditures—funds spent to support a political candidate where the spending is done in coordination with the campaign—by political parties as codified in the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). Justice Kavanaugh, writing for a 6-3 majority, wrote that “[i]n light of the doctrinal and factual changes since 2001,” FECA’s coordinated expenditure “limits on political parties’ coordinated expenditures violate the First Amendment.”

This is a watershed moment for the national political party committees and state parties, but its impact on outside groups will be limited. There is still a role for Super PACs and independent expenditure-side activities. It would now theoretically be permitted for a sole wealthy donor to write a single check to a congressional candidate’s “joint fundraising committee” for more than $500,000, and that amount—after being funneled through the state parties and then back to a national political party committee—can be used to pay that candidate’s bills. This will free up candidates’ campaigns to spend their own funds on their priorities, for instance TV ads, for which candidates have access to lower rates than outside groups.

Key takeaways for clients operating in this space

1. Donors are still subject to earmarking laws and contribution limits

The federal law on earmarking still applies to individual donors, companies, their Political Action Committees, state parties, and national political party committees.

In the Opinion of the Court, Justice Kavanaugh directly confronted what he characterized as a “serious argument” against relying on earmarking as a prophylactic sufficient to prevent circumvention. The Court addressed “the risk of quid pro quo corruption or its appearance when a donor’s contributions are earmarked” for specific candidates, which would indeed circumvent the contribution limits.

During oral arguments, Justice Kavanaugh previewed this when he evoked amicus arguments that the earmarking law is “pretty toothless in practice” and that “it’s difficult to police.” The federal law on earmarking is found in 52 U.S.C. §30116(a)(8), and the FEC’s regulations define earmarking as “any ‘designation, instruction, or encumbrance’ directing funds to support a candidate.” 11 CFR §110.6(b)(1). “Indeed, it is difficult to conjure up realistic scenarios where a donor could circumvent the base limits on contributions to candidates via earmarking in a way that does not also violate those earmarking regulations,” the Court writes.

After addressing concerns articulated by amicus that donors to political parties fully expect their contributions to benefit specific candidates in big races, Justice Kavanaugh ultimately concludes: “The possibility that a political party might act in accordance with a contributor’s expectations or hopes—or is even likely to do so—is not enough to” justify the limits. The majority then invites the Government to more vigorously investigate large contributions to the party committees, writing: “there is no good reason to think that the Government cannot detect a donor who tries to make a disguised large contribution to a particular candidate by funneling it through a contribution to a party.”

In a post-Slaughter environment—where criminal and civil enforcement of the federal campaign finance laws will now be concentrated at the White House—this is a potentially ominous signal. Before communicating with the national or state parties this cycle on next steps, donors and fundraising consultants should consult legal counsel.

2. Joint fundraising committees may increase in prevalence

Since there is no longer a limit on what a political party can spend on a specific candidate’s campaign, the logical next question is: how much can parties raise to benefit that candidate? The formal answer is that the parties are capped at the base contribution limits, but—as Justice Kagan’s dissent points out—in practice, donors could actually be able to contribute more than $550,000.

This new regime will mean that any federal candidate (most commonly a presidential candidate can take full advantage of this) can now set up a joint fundraising committee and (ostensibly) avoid the earmarking law. As Justice Kagan maps out, these types of joint victory funds can accept a single check of more than $551,300 from a single donor:

  • $7,000 on account of the individual limits to candidate committees;
  • $44,300 for the individual limit on contributions to a national committee (DCCC, DSCC, or DNC); plus
  • $10,000 on behalf of each state party committee (50 of them).

However, donors themselves are still subject to contribution limits for each type of entity making up that joint committee. Donors should consult legal counsel and remain vigilant about which federal candidates are participating in which joint fundraising committees, to avoid inadvertently exceeding contribution limits. Donors should also continue to review “joint fundraising notices” they receive to review the allocations of contributions. There is a case pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia filed by the DCCC challenging the role of joint fundraising committees’ TV advertisements in coordination with candidates, which will now be un-paused and could impact the prevalence of these joint committees.

Due to this, in the future it is reasonable to expect:

  • More candidate-centered joint fundraising committees;
  • Larger direct fundraising asks from candidates;
  • Greater integration between candidate campaigns and party committees;
  • Increased donor interest in high-dollar party fundraising vehicles; and
  • Increased compliance costs associated with fundraising.

3. Increased TV spending by federal candidates and parties under “lowest unit charge”

It has been reported that some donors have been sitting on the sidelines waiting for this decision in order to contribute to the political party committees instead of Super PACs. One reason this may be the case is that, because political party committees can now legally spend unlimited amounts in coordination with candidates, the liabilities and spending priorities of federal campaigns can be shared with (i.e., offloaded to) political party committees. Since candidates can access lower rates for TV broadcast ads (47 C.F.R. §73.1942), many predict an increase in TV ad spending by candidates and parties, with outside groups shifting resources to other modes of communication (canvassing, digital, mail, etc.). Further, the FCC has stated that joint fundraising committees qualify as “authorized committees” of candidates, and therefore also have access to lower TV broadcast rates.

4. Super PACs and IE-Side outside groups retain their fundraising advantage

The Court’s holding is limited to political parties and did not impact coordinated-expenditure restrictions applicable to outside organizations. This means that if you are on the independent expenditure side this cycle:

  • Super PACs remain independent expenditure organizations;
  • Coordination prohibitions remain intact;
  • 501(c)(4) organizations face no immediate impacts;
  • Existing IE compliance obligations remain unchanged.

This decision only impacted the amount that a political party committee can spend in coordination with a candidate, but the base limits applicable to the parties remain intact. Super PACs, therefore, still maintain a competitive advantage because they can fundraise in unlimited amounts.

5. State parties may see more of a role

Over the long-term, political party committees—nationally and at the state level—emerge from this decision in a stronger competitive position in federal elections. The Court’s majority noted that, “since 2001, political parties’ relative power has substantially diminished in comparison to outside groups.” The majority decision suggested it was acting with an eye towards restoring the supposed lost influence of the political parties.

In the immediate term, political party committees excelling at fundraising will be able to subsidize underperforming federal candidates.

State parties and their donors remain subject to anti-earmarking laws. However, as noted above, state parties may increasingly be called upon to assist in effectuating the joint fundraising efforts of federal candidates. Some state parties may attempt to negotiate to retain some of those funds in exchange for participating. State parties, like the national committees, will continue to enjoy lower postage rates for mail, but those rates are still restricted to their own mail—not candidates. U.S. Postal Service Pub. 417, §5-1.

6. State Laws will be subject to challenge

Although it impacts state parties, this Supreme Court decision interpreted a federal law regulating federal candidates and committees. However, because it was a constitutional case, states will likely see challenges to existing state laws that place limits on coordinated expenditures between nonfederal candidates and state accounts of political party committees, citing this decision. Other states may see regulators, like an Attorney General’s office, reinterpret those laws and find them unenforceable under the First Amendment.

7. Future litigation: Which campaign finance limits will fall next? 

During oral arguments, appointed counsel for the DOJ, Mr. Martinez, predicted: “This is like the camel’s nose under the tent. If you agree with [plaintiff petitioners] in this case, you’re… going to be deluged with petitions, the dominos are going to fall, and you’re going to have to reconstruct campaign finance law from the ground up.”

The question that hung over oral argument—and still hangs over the opinion—is whether contribution limits themselves can survive the logic of the Court’s analysis. The majority’s answer is yes: contribution limits remain secure because they directly target quid pro quo corruption, while earmarking rules and disclosure laws sufficiently prevent circumvention of those base limits.

The takeaway

This decision is framed in part as placing political parties back on equal footing with Super PACs—but, of course, they will not be until they can start accepting unlimited contributions. The question is, then: what is the remaining rationale for the contribution limits to parties—not to mention the anti-coordination rules applicable to IE-side groups—in a world where disclosure requirements and earmarking laws are viewed as sufficient to prevent donors from circumventing the law?

Brian Farnkoff is an election law and campaign finance attorney who advises candidates, political committees, nonprofits, advocacy organizations, and political consultants on campaign finance compliance, nonprofit advocacy, lobbying, and electoral activity. Drawing on nearly two decades of experience in politics, public policy, and government investigations, he helps clients operate confidently and effectively in highly regulated political environments. He can be reached at [email protected].

Bernstein Shur’s Political Campaigns & Public Affairs Consulting Group helps campaigns, PACs, political parties, advocacy organizations, and public affairs professionals navigate election law, campaign finance compliance, advocacy, and political strategy. The group combines legal counsel and campaign experience to help clients achieve their objectives while managing legal and reputational risk.