National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Comm’n, 609/2

FECA limits political parties’ coordinated expenditures with candidates, and the Court previously upheld those limits in Colorado II. 1
Petitioners, including the NRSC and candidate JD Vance, challenged the limits under the First Amendment, arguing Colorado II was no longer valid. 2
The Sixth Circuit upheld the statute, but the United States later agreed with petitioners that the limits were unconstitutional. 3
The Court held that at least one plaintiff had standing and that the case was not moot because Vance still had an active Senate candidacy filing and campaign committee. 4
The Court concluded that FECA’s coordinated-expenditure limits are disproportionate and not narrowly tailored because earmarking and disclosure rules already address circumvention. 5
The Court reversed the Sixth Circuit and overruled Colorado II to the extent it remained viable. 6

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing and mootness 7	Vance’s candidacy filing and committee keep the case live.	The case is moot because the Government will not enforce and Vance is no longer a candidate.	The case is justiciable and not moot. 8
First Amendment validity of coordinated-expenditure caps 9	The caps burden party speech and fail close scrutiny.	The caps prevent circumvention of candidate contribution limits.	The caps violate the First Amendment. 10
Whether anti-corruption justifies the caps 11	Only quid pro quo corruption can justify campaign-finance limits, and these caps go beyond it.	The caps prevent corruption, undue influence, and circumvention through parties.	Only quid pro quo anti-circumvention counts, and the caps are unnecessary. 12
Whether earmarking and disclosure rules are enough 13	Existing earmarking and disclosure rules adequately stop circumvention.	Those measures are insufficient without coordinated-expenditure caps.	Earmarking plus disclosure make the caps disproportionate. 14
Stare decisis and Colorado II 15	Colorado II should be overruled because later cases undermined it.	Colorado II remains controlling precedent.	Colorado II is overruled to the extent it survives. 16

Federal Election Comm’n v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Comm., 533 U.S. 431 (U.S. 2001) (upheld party coordinated-expenditure limits, later overruled to the extent inconsistent 17)
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1976) (independent campaign spending protected; contribution limits upheld 18)
McCutcheon v. Federal Election Comm’n, 572 U.S. 185 (U.S. 2014) (closely drawn scrutiny and anti-circumvention analysis for campaign-finance limits 19)
Federal Election Comm’n v. Ted Cruz for Senate, 596 U.S. 289 (U.S. 2022) (reinforced rigorous tailoring and anti-corruption limits in campaign-finance review 20)
McConnell v. Federal Election Comm’n, 540 U.S. 93 (U.S. 2003) (recognized the special relationship between parties and candidates 21)
SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Comm’n, 599 F.3d 686 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (described the rise of super PACs and outside-group spending 22)