Parties spent more than $100 million after direct party-candidate coordination limits ended
A June Supreme Court ruling struck down a campaign-finance law that capped how much political parties could spend in direct coordination with candidates, declaring those caps unconstitutional under the First Amendment. According to AdImpact, a firm that tracks political advertising, the parties spent more than $100 million on television advertisements they coordinate with candidates after the ruling; most of that spending came from the GOP. Coordinated television advertising has reached battleground states, including key Senate races that could determine control of the chamber, and spending in those races has far surpassed what the caps would have allowed.
In Ohio, the cap for each party would have been $1.2 million for the 2026 cycle. Through the end of September, the Republican Party’s Senate fundraising committee spent $23 million in coordination with incumbent Jon Husted, while its Democratic counterpart spent $5.7 million in coordination with challenger Sherrod Brown, according to campaign-finance disclosures.
In Michigan, where the cap would have been $1.1 million, the Republican Senate committee has spent $13.4 million in coordination with candidate Mike Rogers, while the Democratic Senate committee has spent $4.6 million in coordination with candidate Abdul El-Sayed. Similar spending patterns have emerged in other Senate battlegrounds, including Iowa and Maine.
Justice Elena Kagan, who dissented in the coordinated-spending case, addressed the consequences at an appearance at Catholic University’s law school on Tuesday. “The people of America look around at this political system and think that all this money chasing all these political candidates is a nightmare. And they’re right,” she said. Kagan, an Obama appointee, also criticized ideologically polarized rulings that she said had made it easier for states to redraw congressional districts for political gain.
Chief Justice John Roberts’s 2019 majority opinion in Rucho v. Common Cause said that extreme partisan gerrymandering “leads to results that reasonably seem unjust,” while concluding that federal judges were not equipped to referee such disputes.
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court’s April Louisiana v. Callais ruling narrowed the Voting Rights Act. The Wall Street Journal said the court appeared to accept partisan gerrymandering as a valid goal for state legislatures. In the majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that partisan advantage is “a constitutionally permissible criterion that states may rely on as desired.”
Tabatha Abu El-Haj, a law professor at Drexel University, said the court’s evolving language about partisan gerrymandering had seemed to validate the practice. “There was always partisan gerrymandering. But now, it’s gone from a fact of politics to a legitimate constitutional interest,” she said.
The Callais decision allowed Alabama, Louisiana and Tennessee to quickly dismantle House districts where Black voters had held a majority or near-majority. Republicans are now favored to flip all three seats next month. Other Southern states may follow suit and eliminate more majority-Black districts by 2028.
States around the country have also undertaken mid-decade redistricting designed to maximize partisan advantage. The Wall Street Journal reported that Republican-controlled states, which it described as prodded by President Trump, have led the effort. The outlet also reported that a Democratic counter-effort in California is expected to offset much of the potential Republican gain.
In June, the Supreme Court rejected a Republican-led challenge to state laws that count ballots if they are mailed by Election Day and arrive shortly afterward.
Last month, the court blocked a Trump administration plan to impose new requirements for mail ballots. It also stopped an effort to install a pro-Republican voting map in Missouri.
Lower courts are handling two other disputes. The Trump administration is attempting to block California from counting mail ballots from 20,000 people that the administration says may not be American citizens. On Friday, the administration sued to prevent certification of Alaska’s Senate results if the Republican candidate loses.
The Wall Street Journal said any postelection litigation challenging results after Nov. 3 might have to be resolved by the Supreme Court.