Supreme Court Strikes Down Federal Limits on Coordinated Party Spending: What NRSC v. FEC Means for State Law
By: Jason Torchinsky, Michael Bayes, Jan Baran, Caden Benedict, and Alex Vogel, Jr.
On June 30, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court held in National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission that federal limits on a political party’s coordinated spending with candidates violate the First Amendment.
In a 6–3 opinion by Justice Kavanaugh, the Court overruled FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee (Colorado II) and invalidated the federal party-coordinated-expenditure limits in 52 U.S.C. § 30116(d). Those limits gave the national party committee and the relevant state party committee separate ceilings for coordinated expenditures. For the 2025–2026 cycle, each committee could spend up to $65,300 in most House races and $130,600 in at-large House races. Each committee's Senate ceiling ranged from $130,600 in Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming to $4,071,800 in California. The Court reasoned that base contribution limits, earmarking rules, and disclosure requirements already address circumvention, and that the Government had not justified the additional, disproportionate ceiling on core party speech.
The Court's decision left intact the base limits on direct contributions from party committees to federal candidates and invalidated only the separate Section 30116(d) ceiling on party coordinated expenditures. Rules governing coordinated expenditures by outside groups are unaffected.
While the Supreme Court’s decision does not automatically invalidate any state law, the Court supplied a framework for evaluating state restrictions on how political parties may support state candidates. Twenty-three states and the District of Columbia currently limit a political party’s direct contributions and/or coordinated support to a state candidate. (That number will rise to 24 when Oregon's new campaign finance law takes effect on January 1, 2027.) Relatively few states have statutes that directly address party coordinated spending, so the application of NRSC at the state level will likely be an issue for some time to come.
Tier 1: Express Coordinated Support Rules
States in Tier 1 have laws that expressly regulate a political party's coordinated spending or define party spending as presumptively or per se coordinated and capped. These laws present the closest analogy to the federal restriction struck down in NRSC. Differences in earmarking and disclosure rules may affect the extent to which NRSC's reasoning directly applies.
South Carolina provides a straightforward example. State law deems expenditures by party and legislative caucus committees based on party affiliation to be controlled by, coordinated with, or made at the request of the candidate, and caps aggregate party and caucus support at $50,000 for statewide candidates and $5,000 for other offices. S.C. Code Ann. §§ 8-13-1300(17), 8-13-1316(A). This party spending cap closely parallels the federal statute invalidated in NRSC v. FEC.
Tier 2: Contribution-Based Party Support Rules
States in Tier 2 do not impose a distinct party-specific coordinated-expenditure ceiling. Instead, a state’s general coordination or in-kind-contribution rules treat candidate-approved party expenditures, collaborative communications, furnished services, or candidate expenses paid by a party as contributions to the candidate that are subject to the ordinary party-to-candidate limit.
Hawaii illustrates this approach: coordinated activity by a party is treated as a contribution and is subject to the ordinary $2,000, $4,000, or $6,000 candidate limit, depending on the office. Haw. Rev. Stat. §§ 11-357(a), 11-363(a), (c). In Tier 2 states, the post-NRSC issue is whether an ordinary contribution limit may still be applied to coordinated nonmonetary party support. A legislature, regulator, or court could exclude that support from the existing monetary-contribution limit, as Minnesota has done, or remove the party contribution limit altogether.
Tier 3: Limited Scope or Qualified Rules
States within Tier 3 address party contributions and coordination in qualified ways within broader campaign-finance systems. Some limits are tied to public financing programs or to a limited class of candidates. Others exclude broad categories of party services or multi-candidate communications, permit unlimited coordination only in specified contests, or retain only monetary-contribution or public-financing constraints after coordinated in-kind support is excluded. Challenges in these states will be more targeted and fact-specific.
Florida, for example, caps aggregate party support at $250,000 for statewide candidates and $50,000 for other candidates, but excludes specified polling, research, staffing, consulting, call, and text services from those caps. Exempted in-kind support remains reportable. Fla. Stat. § 106.08(2). West Virginia, on the other hand, uses an election-specific carveout. Coordinated expenditures ordinarily are treated as contributions, but party and caucus committees may coordinate without limit in specific general-election campaigns (Governor, Attorney General, Auditor, Commissioner of Agriculture, Secretary of State, Treasurer, State Senate, and House of Delegates). This carveout does not apply in primary elections or to offices not listed. W. Va. Code §§ 3-8-9a(a), 3-8-9b(a).
Tier 4: No General Limit on Coordinated or In-Kind Party Support
Tier 4 contains 26 states that generally impose no dollar limit on coordinated or in-kind party support in the ordinary state-office candidate channel. (Oregon is currently unrestricted but will join Tier 2 if its new campaign finance limits take effect January 1, 2027.) The Supreme Court treated the experience of the majority of states that did not place limits on party-coordinated spending as evidence that the federal ceiling was unnecessary and insufficiently tailored. Some Tier 4 states retain narrower rules, so inclusion in this category does not mean coordinated party spending activity is wholly unregulated. In South Dakota, for example, contributions to a candidate generally include donated goods and services that are subject to individual and entity contribution limits, but candidates may accept contributions from political parties without limit. S.D. Codified Laws §§ 12-27-1(6), 12-27-7(4), 12-27-8(4).
What States and Courts Will Need to Decide
When evaluating state laws in the wake of NRSC v. FEC, the first question is the nature of the restriction. Does state law contain an express coordinated-spending rule that resembles the federal regime struck down in NRSC, or does it achieve the same outcome by subjecting coordinated spending to an ordinary contribution limit?
The next question involves regulatory redundancy. Each listed jurisdiction imposes campaign-finance reporting obligations relevant to covered party support, although the filer, thresholds, timing, and itemization requirements vary widely. State earmarking and conduit rules also differ, and each state must consider whether its law includes sufficient disclosure and earmarking protections to render limits on party-coordinated spending redundant. If not, a state may argue its statutory scheme falls outside NRSC v. FEC because its party coordinated spending restriction remains necessary to avoid contribution limit circumvention.
Courts may also examine whether a given limit meaningfully burdens party speech, whether the state has evidence of actual circumvention, and whether existing exemptions undermine the state’s asserted interest in deterring quid pro quo corruption. A formula-based ceiling, a restriction that applies to only one office, or a rule exempting substantial categories of party activity present different questions under the Court’s opinion.
State Responses So Far
Minnesota (July 9, 2026). Minnesota appears to be the first state to issue public post-decision guidance. The Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board directed staff not to count party-unit in-kind contributions—including approved expenditures—toward the aggregate party-unit contribution limit in Minn. Stat. § 10A.27, subd. 2. Monetary contributions from party units to candidates are still limited. Candidate-approved expenditures also remain campaign expenditures for purposes of the spending limits that are accepted by publicly financed candidates. Reporting, authorization, earmarking, and circumvention rules remain in force. Because coordinated and other in-kind party support is excluded while narrower monetary and public financing constraints remain in place, we place Minnesota in Tier 3.
Tennessee (May 9, 2025). While NRSC v. FEC was pending, Tennessee enacted SB 229/HB 653, later published as 2025 Tenn. Pub. Acts ch. 415. Before May 9, 2025, Tennessee sat at the boundary between Tiers 2 and 3: coordinated party expenditures counted as contributions to candidates under Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-10-303(5), and former § 2-10-306(a) imposed office-specific aggregate limits, but former § 2-10-306(b) excluded certain traditional party-building activities and printed materials listing three or more candidates. The 2025 law still defines coordinated expenditures as contributions, but it replaced the old system by exempting political party committees and political party caucus committees from the contribution limits that previously applied to candidates. This change removed limits on both monetary contributions and coordinated in-kind support from qualifying party committees, moving Tennessee to Tier 4.
What Comes Next for State Law
NRSC changes the constitutional landscape but does not produce a single answer for every state. Political parties, candidates, regulators, and legislatures should examine their state’s applicable rules on party coordinated spending, any anti-circumvention safeguards already in place, and whether any evidence exists that might support an additional limit on party speech. The post-NRSC landscape is likely to develop state by state as regulators, legislatures, and courts apply the Supreme Court’s decision to their specific circumstances.
Please contact your Holtzman Vogel attorney with questions about a particular jurisdiction.
This article is for general informational purposes only and may not reflect the most recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice or a legal opinion. Readers should consult counsel concerning specific facts or circumstances.
Downloadable chart available below on State Party-Coordination Rules After NRSC v FEC.
