Case Summary
LWV, Campaign Legal Center, and Common Cause filed an amicus brief in the United States Supreme Court supporting limits on political parties’ coordinated spending with candidates. The League’s brief urged the court to uphold the limits, stating they played an important role in preventing circumvention of caps on donations to individual candidates and defended the electoral system from corruption and undue influence by donors.
Under federal campaign finance law, there are several types of political spending that are subject to varying contribution limits and restrictions. Among these are individual candidate contributions, national political party committee contributions, and coordinated party expenditures by parties with their candidates. In 2024, the contribution limits for these categories were as follows: individual candidate contributions, that is donations to a specific candidate by an individual donor, were limited to $3,300 per election, while donations to national political party committees were limited to $41,300, and state party committees had a contribution limit of $10,000. A political party committee could only contribute $5,000 directly to a candidate and spend between $61,800 to $123,600 in House elections and $123,600 to $3,772,100 in Senate elections.
In 2022, the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) filed a federal lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, claiming the limits on coordinated party expenditures were unconstitutional under the First Amendment and that prior precedent upholding the limits was no longer justified due to changes in campaign finance and underlying case law and precedent.
The district court certified the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit under Section 310 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. The full court of appeals rejected the challenge, stating it was barred by current United States Supreme Court precedent upholding the constitutionality of coordinated party expenditures. On December 4, 2024, the NRSC appealed to the United States Supreme Court, asking it to take up the case. On May 30, 2025, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) moved to intervene to defend the coordinated party expenditure limits, after the Department of Justice and new Solicitor General switched positions and sided with the NRSC’s request to strike them down. The court granted the request on June 30, 2025, and granted the DNC’s request to intervene on the same day.
On September 29, 2025, the League of Women Voters, Campaign Legal Center, and Common Cause filed an amicus brief in the United States Supreme Court supporting the limits and urging the court to uphold them. The brief argued that while donors are limited in how much they can give to individual candidates, they can give much higher amounts to political parties. Thus, political parties were allowed to spend unlimited amounts in coordination with candidates, creating a backdoor for much higher donations to individual candidates and allowing larger donors to stand out to candidates.
The League and its co-amici were represented in this matter by Campaign Legal Center.
LWV Timeline
National Republican Senatorial Committee files federal lawsuit
The NRSC files a federal lawsuit asserting coordinated party spending limits are unconstitutional under the First Amendment.
District court certifies case to court of appeals
The district court grants the plaintiffs' request to certify the case for the full Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to decide the case under Section 310 of the Federal Elections Campaign Act. The ruling states the plaintiffs have standing to sue and that changes in case law and the underlying statute created sufficiently valid legal questions to certify the case.
Sixth Circuit affirms constitutionality of coordinated party spending limits
The full Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals dismisses plaintiffs' First Amendment claims, stating that while there are laws and facts surrounding campaign finance and political spending, the plaintiffs could not prevail under current Supreme Court precedent.
Plaintiffs file petition for writ of certiorari
The plaintiffs file a petition for a writ of certiorari, asking the United States Supreme Court to take the case and reverse the Sixth Circuit’s ruling.
Democratic National Committee moves to intervene
The DNC moves to intervene in the case after the new Solicitor General and United States Department of Justice refuse to defend the coordinated party spending limits.
DNC’s motion to intervene is granted
The United States Supreme Court grants the DNC’s petition to intervene, allowing it to participate in oral argument and defend the spending limits.
Supreme Court accepts case
The United States Supreme Court grants plaintiffs’ petition and takes up the case.
LWV files amicus brief
LWV, Campaign Legal Center, and Common Cause file an amicus brief defending the spending limits. The brief argues that if parties are allowed to spend unlimited amounts in coordination with candidates, a backdoor to allowing much higher donations to individual candidates indirectly would open, allowing larger donors to stand out to candidates and curry favor.