The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday closely examined the constitutionality of decades-old campaign finance rules that cap how much national political party committees can spend in coordination with individual candidates—a dispute now at the center of a high-profile case tied to Vice President JD Vance. The case, widely described as JD Vance-backed challenge prompts Supreme Court review of campaign finance limits, could reshape how parties and candidates fund elections in the future.
During oral arguments, the justices appeared divided, reflecting the court’s long-running ideological split over money in politics. While it remains unclear how the court will ultimately rule, the conservative majority’s skepticism toward campaign finance restrictions was on full display.
Mootness Question Takes Center Stage
A key procedural issue raised during the hearing was whether the case should even be decided. Roman Martinez, a lawyer appointed by the court to defend the existing limits after the Trump administration declined to do so, argued the challenge is now moot. His reasoning: Vance, who initially brought the case while running for the Senate, is no longer a candidate and has declined to say whether he plans to run for president in 2028.
Martinez pointed to Vance’s recent NBC News interview, where the vice president carefully avoided committing to a future run, saying his focus remains on doing his current job well. Martinez contended that without an active or declared candidacy, Vance lacks a concrete stake in the outcome.
Several justices, however, appeared unconvinced. Justice Samuel Alito noted that political figures often keep their intentions vague, suggesting that uncertainty about future plans is hardly unusual for potential candidates.
Conservatives Question Limits, Liberals Defend Them
Substantively, the debate returned to familiar ground. Conservative justices questioned whether limits on coordinated party spending infringe on free speech and weaken political parties. Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested that striking down the restrictions could actually restore influence to national parties, which he argued have been sidelined by the rise of super PACs following earlier court decisions.
“I am concerned that campaign finance laws, combined with this court’s rulings, have reduced the power of political parties in ways that harm our constitutional democracy,” Kavanaugh said.
Liberal justices pushed back sharply. Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned that loosening restrictions further risks worsening corruption and public distrust, arguing that the court has repeatedly undermined Congress’s efforts to regulate money in politics. “The threat hasn’t diminished,” she said, referring to the influence of large sums in elections.
Citizens United Looms Large
Hovering over the arguments was the legacy of the court’s landmark 2010 decision in Citizens United v. FEC, which allowed unlimited independent spending by outside groups. Conservative Justice Samuel Alito, who was in the majority in that case, said it has been unfairly criticized, while liberals again emphasized its far-reaching consequences.
What’s at Stake
The limits under review date back to 1971 and restrict how much party committees can spend directly in coordination with candidates—such as paying for travel, venues, or consultants. While parties may spend unlimited amounts independently, coordinated spending is capped, with limits reaching nearly $4 million in some Senate races and about $127,000 for at-large House contests.
Vance, along with Republican campaign committees and former Rep. Steve Chabot of Ohio, is seeking to eliminate those caps entirely. The Federal Election Commission, following a change in position by the Trump administration, now agrees with the challengers that the restrictions violate the First Amendment.
If the court sides with Republicans, the decision could disproportionately benefit GOP candidates, who historically rely more on coordinated party spending than Democrats, who tend to have stronger fundraising networks.
In addition to appointing Martinez to defend the law, the Supreme Court allowed the Democratic National Committee to intervene in support of keeping the limits intact. With the court’s ruling expected later this year, the outcome could mark another major turning point in the evolution of U.S. campaign finance law.
