Email from The Institute for Free Speech Today’s Supreme Court oral argument in NRSC v. FEC ably illustrated that limits on coordinated political party expenditures violate the First Amendment For Immediate Release: December 9, 2025   Media Contact: Name: Tom Garrett Phone: 202-301-9200 Email: [email protected] Institute for Free Speech Encouraged by Supreme Court's Skeptical Reception of Restrictions on Free Political Speech Today’s Supreme Court oral argument in NRSC v. FEC ably illustrated that limits on coordinated political party expenditures violate the First Amendment Washington, DC — The just-argued Supreme Court case National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC addresses the issue of whether federal limits on coordinated expenditures between political parties and their candidates violate the First Amendment. But the case also has unmistakable, larger implications for campaign finance law and free speech. Institute for Free Speech Senior Attorney Brett Nolan reacted to today’s argument with optimism, noting that “the Supreme Court looks poised to throw out yet another unnecessary restriction on political speech.” “Whether political parties can spend money supporting their own candidates should be a no-brainer, but our campaign-finance laws are filled with unnecessary and burdensome restrictions that prevent people from pooling their resources to share their message with the public,” Nolan explained. “This law is no exception. It erects barriers between candidates for office and some of their closest supporters—the members of the political party they represent. That kind of intrusion on free speech and association is justified only if the government has significant evidence that the law solves a compelling problem.” Nolan, who co-authored the Institute’s first Supreme Court amicus brief in the case with Institute Founder and Chairman Bradley Smith, added that the Court “appeared skeptical” toward the notion that there is any such evidence at all. “As counsel for the petitioners pointed out, more than half of the states allow party coordination without experiencing any increase in quid pro quo corruption,” Nolan noted. “The attorneys supporting the law today could not adequately explain why the federal limits are necessary in light of the total absence of quid pro quo corruption in the states.” Indeed, the Institute’s brief demonstrated that over half the states allow unlimited party coordination, including 17 states that also restrict individual contributions—yet there is no evidence of these arrangements leading to corruption. The Department of Justice also filed a brief acknowledging this reality, recognizing that the law represents a “prophylaxis-upon-prophylaxis approach” that fails heightened First Amendment scrutiny. Nolan agrees that the petitioners have the better of this argument. “While the Court wrestled with line-drawing problems about how a decision overturning the coordinated party expenditures might affect other campaign-finance laws, it seems likely the challengers will prevail here. And that will be a welcome victory for the First Amendment.” To read the Institute’s first Supreme Court amicus brief in the case National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC, click here. To read Brett Nolan’s expert analysis on the Sixth Circuit’s decision in NRSC, click here. To access the Institute’s case page on NRSC, click here. Finally, to access the “Free Speech Arguments” podcast page, which includes case resources and audio of today’s oral argument, click here. About the Institute for Free Speech  The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. Visit us at www.ifs.org Follow the Institute for Free Speech: The Institute for Free Speech | 1150 Connecticut Ave., NW Suite 801 | Washington, DC 20036 US Unsubscribe | Update Profile | Constant Contact Data Notice