Publication
U.S. Supreme Court Poised to Substantially Increase Political Party Influence in Candidate Elections
By Eric H. Spencer, Joseph Kanefield1, and Alison Tobin2
The United States Supreme Court is set to hear the most important campaign finance case in some time. The Court’s decision in National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) v. Federal Election Commission (FEC), which will likely be argued this fall, could strike down financial limits on “coordinated expenditures” between political party committees and their federal candidate nominees.
If the Supreme Court overturns precedent that previously upheld this key provision of the Federal Election Campaign Act, campaign finance regulations may be completely reshaped and affect how industries influence the political process. The potential impact of NRSC v. FEC could be enormous given the current restraints on political party spending in federal and state elections.
On June 30, 2025, the United States Supreme Court granted writ of certiorari to hear NRSC v. FEC and revisit their 2001 ruling in FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee (Colorado II).3 The original case was brought by the NRSC, National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), and the campaigns of then-Senator J.D. Vance (R-OH) and former Representative Steve Chabot (R-OH).
At issue in NRSC v. FEC is the Nixon-era limit on campaign spending known as the “Party Expenditure Provision,” which was enacted due to concerns that political party expenditures circumvented restrictions on individual contributions to federal candidates.4 Specifically, the Court will address coordinated party expenditures (expenditures made by a national or state political party in coordination with – and often input from – the federal candidate that the party supports).5
Effectively, the provision limits a political party’s ability to communicate or strategize with candidates about how funds are spent on campaign advertising.6 Coordinated party expenditures are capped, and current restriction levels depend on the office the candidate is seeking and the relevant voting-age population in the jurisdiction.7
Expanding on the age-old adage “money talks,” challengers argue that limiting coordinated party expenditures violates the First Amendment. In agreement, the Department of Justice has stated it will not defend the provision, explaining that the current terrain of political fundraising calls for a reexamination of spending restrictions.8 Although the en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit characterized the challengers’ arguments as “fair points” it ultimately upheld the provision, citing the Court’s duty to follow Colorado II precedent.9
This is not the first time the Supreme Court has addressed challenges to the Act on First Amendment grounds. If recent history is any judge, the Court is prone to strike down this provision as an unnecessarily restrictive check on political spending. If so, the locus of political spending may shift back to political parties and away from SuperPACs as the former spending mechanism becomes more attractive. This would apply to federal elections and would raise doubts about similar state and local election restraints on political party spending. In turn, business groups and regulated industries may be enticed to redirect their political spending accordingly.
The Snell & Wilmer team will continue monitoring this important case.
Footnotes
-
Joseph Kanefield and Eric Spencer previously served as State Election Director for the Arizona Secretary of State from 2004-2009 and 2015-2018, respectively, and between them administered a combined total of 14 statewide elections, including three presidential elections.
-
Alison Tobin is a 2025 summer associate at Snell & Wilmer and a 2027 J.D. candidate at Duke. She is not admitted to practice law.
-
533 U.S. 431 (2001).
-
See Sam R. Garrett, The State of Campaign Finance Policy: Recent Developments and Issues for Congress, CRS Reports (Sep. 12, 2023), https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R41542.
-
See 52 U.S.C. § 30116(d).
-
Petition for Writ of Certiorari at 5, Nat’l Republican Senatorial Comm. v. Fed. Election Comm’n, No. 24-621 (Dec. 4, 2024), 2024 WL 5055853 at 1 (quoting Colo. Republican Fed. Campaign Comm. v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 518 U.S. 604, 618 (1996)).
-
See 52 U.S.C. § 30116; 11 C.F.R. § 109.37.
-
See Brief for the Respondents, https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-621/359134/20250519155738355_24-621certresponse.pdf).
-
See Nat’l Republican Senatorial Comm. v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 117 F.4th 389 (6th Cir. 2024), cert. granted, No. 24-621, 2025 WL 1787717 (June 30, 2025).
About Snell & Wilmer
Founded in 1938, Snell & Wilmer is a full-service business law firm with more than 500 attorneys practicing in 17 locations throughout the United States and in Mexico, including Los Angeles, Orange County, Palo Alto and San Diego, California; Phoenix and Tucson, Arizona; Denver, Colorado; Washington, D.C.; Boise, Idaho; Las Vegas and Reno-Tahoe, Nevada; Albuquerque, New Mexico; Portland, Oregon; Dallas, Texas; Salt Lake City, Utah; Seattle, Washington; and Los Cabos, Mexico. The firm represents clients ranging from large, publicly traded corporations to small businesses, individuals and entrepreneurs. For more information, visit swlaw.com.
