*This forecasting question is associated with the Verity controversy:* [*Will the U.S. Supreme Court reduce campaign finance limitations in National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission?*](https://www.verity.news/controversy/Will-the-US-Supreme-Court-further-cut-back-campaign-finance-limitations-and-expand-on-the-Citizens-United-ruling-National-Republican-Senatorial-Committee-v-Federal-Election-Commission) The Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in [*Citizens United v. FEC*](https://www.fec.gov/legal-resources/court-cases/citizens-united-v-fec/) fundamentally reshaped U.S. campaign finance law by holding that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent political expenditures by corporations and unions. This ruling overturned longstanding limits and led to the rise of [super PACs](https://www.opensecrets.org/political-action-committees-pacs/super-pacs/2022) — political committees that can raise and spend unlimited funds from individuals, corporations, and unions so long as they do not coordinate directly with candidates or parties. [Advocates say the decision protected political speech, while critics argue it amplified wealthy interests in elections](https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/citizens-united-explained). Since *Citizens United*, the Court has continued to interpret campaign finance restrictions through a robust free-speech lens. In later rulings such as [*McCutcheon v. FEC* ](https://www.fec.gov/legal-resources/court-cases/mccutcheon-et-al-v-fec/)(2014), the Court struck down aggregate limits on individual contributions to federal candidates and committees, reasoning that such caps burden political speech without sufficiently preventing corruption. These decisions have cumulatively loosened regulatory controls and shifted much of the campaign finance landscape toward greater permissiveness. The current case, [*National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC*](https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/national-republican-senatorial-committee-v-federal-election-commission/), represents the latest high-profile challenge. Plaintiffs including the NRSC, another Republican campaign committee, and individuals argue that federal limits on coordinated spending by political parties and their candidates violate the First Amendment in light of the Court’s recent free-speech jurisprudence. The [U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case ](https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/12/court-to-hear-arguments-on-whether-to-further-cut-back-campaign-finance-limitations/)after the Sixth Circuit upheld the limits under older precedent. Oral arguments were heard in December 2025, and a [decision is expected by mid-2026](https://www.newsweek.com/supreme-court-let-political-parties-spend-unlimited-money-11164570). A ruling for the plaintiffs could significantly expand *Citizens United*’s logic by striking down longstanding limits on party coordination and spending, potentially allowing parties to raise and spend far larger sums directly in conjunction with candidates. Conservative advocates have framed this as strengthening free speech rights, while critics warn it could [further amplify wealthy donors’ influence and weaken anti-corruption safeguards](https://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/news/release/whitehouse-highlights-amicus-brief-detailing-dark-money-corruption-after-oral-arguments-in-nrsc-v-fec/). At the same time, legal observers note that the outcome is not certain; some justices expressed skepticism during oral argument about sweeping changes to campaign finance limits, and longstanding precedents like [*FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee*](https://www.fec.gov/legal-resources/court-cases/fec-v-colorado-republican-federal-campaign-committee/) (2001) could still influence the Court’s reasoning.