Supreme Court removes even more campaign spending guardrails

In National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC (which stems from a 2022 case originally brought by then-Senate candidate J. D. Vance), the Supreme Court has struck down limits on coordinated spending between political campaigns and political action committees (known as PACs). In 2010, the court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC unlocked unlimited campaign spending by PACs, under the theory that “money equals speech” and that therefore those limits violated the First Amendment.

For the most part, PACs are funded by corporate donors and special interests, giving them significant influence over a candidate’s agenda if they ultimately win. A candidate’s official campaign has contribution limits for individual donors. PACs have no such limits. Until today’s decision in National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC, there were at least some limits on how much PAC spending could be directly coordinated with a campaign. The court’s decision means those limits no longer exist.

After Citizens United, studies have shown that the preferences of average citizens have very little impact on policy making, while the preferences of corporate and monied interests now overwhelming dictate candidates’ political agendas.