Supreme Court weighs Republican appeal to end limits on party spending in federal elections

Democrats are calling on the court to uphold the law.

The limits stem from a desire to prevent large donors from skirting caps on individual contributions to a candidate by directing unlimited sums to the party, with the understanding that the money will be spent on behalf of the candidate.

The Federal Election Commission and the GOP argue that the court should cast a skeptical eye on the limits, in line with recent high court decisions. Led by Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative majority has upended a variety of congressionally enacted limits on raising and spending money to influence elections. The court’s 2010 Citizens United decision opened the door to unlimited independent spending in federal elections.

After the Trump administration joined with Republicans to ask the court to strike down the campaign finance law, the justices appointed a lawyer to defend it.

Roman Martinez, an experienced Supreme Court advocate, is offering the justices a way out of the case without deciding anything. Instead, they should hold the case is moot now that the FEC agrees with Republicans that the law is unconstitutional and there is “no credible risk” the agency will try to enforce it, Martinez wrote.

The Republican committees for House and Senate candidates filed the lawsuit in Ohio in 2022, joined by two Ohio Republicans in Congress, then-Sen. JD Vance, now vice president, and then-Rep. Steve Chabot.

In 2025, the coordinated party spending for Senate races ranges from $127,200 in several states with small populations to nearly $4 million in California. For House races, the limits are $127,200 in states with only one representative and $63,600 everywhere else.

Follow the AP's coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court.