The First Amendment protects political speech and association, but that principle does not create one rule for all money. Buckley v. Valeo distinguished direct contribution limits from limits on independent expenditures. Government may regulate contributions more closely to address quid pro quo corruption or its appearance; general influence, access, gratitude, or unequal political power is not by itself the same constitutional interest. Independent spending remains under the outside speaker's control and receives stronger protection. Citizens United v. FEC protected independent corporate political expenditures, but it did not authorize direct corporate contributions to federal candidates, convert coordinated communications into independent speech, or invalidate disclosure generally.

Party spending now requires a precise 2026 distinction. In National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC, decided June 30, 2026, the Supreme Court held that FECA's special dollar limits on political parties' expenditures coordinated with their federal candidates violate the First Amendment and overruled the contrary rule of Colorado II. A party may therefore coordinate candidate-supporting activity without the former Section 30116(d) caps.

The holding did not erase the base limits on a donor's contributions to a candidate. It did not invalidate FECA's earmarking rule, which treats money directed through an intermediary to a candidate as a contribution from the original donor to that candidate. It did not eliminate reporting and disclosure requirements. The Court relied on those less speech-restrictive tools when rejecting the party coordinated-expenditure caps. The decision also concerns political parties, not Super PACs or other outside spenders; their coordination can still make spending contribution-like under the rules governing them.

Classify before judging constitutionality. Identify the actor, recipient, control, coordination, communication, and disclosure duty. Then identify the governmental interest and the burden imposed. A rule limiting a direct candidate transfer, a report identifying a spender, and a cap on independent advocacy present different questions. Current dollar limits change by election cycle, but the analytical categories remain stable enough to solve a new fact pattern without memorizing a stale chart.

Video lesson: Campaign finance | Political participation | US government and civics | Khan Academy