Supreme Court campaign finance decisions: what changed

Supreme Court campaign finance decisions have changed different rules for contributions, independent spending and spending coordinated by political parties. A ruling about one category does not remove the rules for all three.

The cases below explain what changed, including the June 30, 2026 decision on coordinated party expenditures. For help reading actual filings, use Modern Action’s campaign-finance records guide.

Buckley v. Valeo: contributions and spending, 1976

Buckley v. Valeo upheld federal candidate contribution limits, disclosure and recordkeeping requirements, and the presidential public-financing system.

The Court struck down several expenditure limits: limits on candidate and committee spending, independent expenditures, and candidates’ spending from their own funds. The FEC’s summary identifies an exception for presidential candidates who accept public funding.

The distinction is between giving money to a candidate and spending money on advocacy. Buckley treated those activities differently; it did not eliminate the contribution limits it reviewed.

Citizens United v. FEC: corporate independent spending, 2010

Citizens United v. FEC rejected prohibitions on corporate independent expenditures and corporate electioneering communications.

The decision left the ban on corporate contributions intact. It also upheld the reporting and disclaimer requirements considered in the case. A corporation spending independently and a corporation contributing to a candidate are therefore different questions; Citizens United should not be cited as permission for every kind of corporate political payment.

SpeechNow.org v. FEC: a related appeals ruling, 2010

SpeechNow.org v. FEC was decided by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on March 26, 2010. It was not a Supreme Court decision.

SpeechNow was formed to pool individual contributions for independent expenditures advocating the election or defeat of federal candidates. The court held that limits on individuals’ contributions to SpeechNow, and on the contributions the organization could accept from them, violated the First Amendment.

That holding concerns an independent-expenditure organization. It should not be substituted for the rules on direct candidate contributions or coordinated spending.

McCutcheon v. FEC: aggregate contribution limits, 2014

McCutcheon v. FEC struck down the combined ceiling on an individual’s contributions to federal candidates, parties and political action committees over a two-year period.

That is an aggregate limit: the total across recipients. It is different from a separate limit on a contribution to a particular recipient. The ruling addressed the aggregate ceiling, not every individual contribution limit.

NRSC v. FEC: coordinated party expenditures, 2026

On June 30, 2026, the Supreme Court held that the federal political-party coordinated-expenditure limits violate the First Amendment. The FEC’s NRSC case summary describes that holding.

This category involves political-party spending coordinated with a candidate or campaign. It is distinct from both independent expenditures and contributions. The decision should not be described as eliminating every coordination rule or every contribution limit.

What to check when reading a campaign-finance record

Start with the activity involved: a contribution, an independent expenditure or coordinated party spending. Then identify the committee, reporting form and period before comparing figures. A candidate campaign’s receipts and an outside group’s spending are not interchangeable.

Modern Action’s campaign-finance records guide explains how to read those fields and amendments. If you are reading a court opinion, our appeals-court guide explains how to distinguish the court’s holding from a concurrence or dissent.

These case summaries describe what the named decisions resolved. They do not give current contribution dollar limits or instructions for complying with campaign-finance law.