The question
Whether federal limits on how much a political party may spend in coordination with its own candidates violate the First Amendment.
National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Comm’n
What the Court decided
The Court struck down federal limits on coordinated spending between a political party and its own candidates. It held those limits, part of the campaign finance law, violate the First Amendment because a party's spending in concert with the candidates it exists to elect is core political speech the government may not cap.
How the justices split
6-3The Court's opinion
Kavanaugh, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Barrett
A political party and its candidates share the same goal, so a party's coordinated spending is not the kind of corrupting arrangement the government may limit. Capping it burdens core political speech, and the anti-corruption interest that justifies limits on outside groups does not apply to a party spending for its own nominees.
Dissenting
Kagan, joined by Sotomayor, Jackson
The dissent argued coordinated party spending is a well-known channel for donors to route large sums to a candidate while evading contribution limits, so the caps serve the same anti-corruption interest the Court has long upheld. It warned the ruling opens a major loophole in campaign finance law.
How we know · 3 sourced claims
The Court held that FECA's limits on political-party coordinated expenditures violate the First Amendment.
Source: syllabus, Held, at 24-621
The Court reasoned a party's spending coordinated with its own candidates is core political speech.
Source: opinion of the Court (Kavanaugh, J.)
Kavanaugh, J., wrote for the Court, joined by Roberts, C.J., and Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Barrett, JJ.; Kagan, J., dissented, joined by Sotomayor and Jackson, JJ.
Source: syllabus, lineup