The Supreme Court's NRSC v. FEC ruling opened the door to far more money than even the justices recognized
Source: Shana M. Broussard. "2026 midterms: The Supreme Court is more responsible for the money flood than we knew.." November 3, 2026. slate.com
The Gist
The author, an FEC commissioner, says the Supreme Court's 2026 ruling lets parties spend unlimited amounts on a single candidate, and that this opens the door to far more money than even the justices thought. One rich donor can give over $3 million to party committees, all of which can now be spent on one candidate. She argues the FEC can't police this well, and at minimum needs its quorum restored.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court, through its decision in NRSC v. FEC, has let far more money into federal elections than the justices (including the dissent) realized, creating serious corruption risks that the FEC is ill-equipped to address without a restored quorum.
Premises
- In NRSC v. FEC, the Court's conservative majority struck down coordinated party expenditure limits, so party committees can now spend unlimited amounts in coordination with their preferred federal candidates, including on TV ads.
- All nine justices agreed that striking down the limits would increase money in politics, though they disagreed about the corruption risk.
- Justice Kagan's dissent illustrated the effect with a single $551,300 check, but that example counted only one year of contribution limits and so understates the total.
- Across a two-year cycle and all permissible party accounts (general, legal, headquarters, convention, and state party transfers), one individual can give about $3,126,400 to party committees, all of which can now be spent on a single candidate.
- A wealthy donor can therefore use party giving to get around individual contribution limits and effectively fund a preferred candidate, which creates corruption risks.
- The FEC's remaining rules and enforcement tools, in the author's experience of nearly 20 years, are ill-equipped to address this risk, and the agency currently lacks a quorum.
Assumptions
- Donors will actually max out contributions across all party accounts and parties will direct that money to the donor's preferred candidate.
- Large party-routed contributions pose a corruption or quasi-corruption risk comparable to direct contributions.
- The increase in campaign ads this cycle is caused substantially by the NRSC ruling rather than other factors.
- The author's FEC experience gives her reliable insight into the effects and enforcement gaps.
- Legal limits on transfers among party committees (e.g., state-to-national) do not prevent the $3.1M aggregation, and earmarking or anti-circumvention rules are ineffective.
- Restoring the FEC quorum would meaningfully mitigate the risks.