Forward Party Says Supreme Court Ruling on Party Spending Requires Level Playing Field for New Parties

The Forward Party is calling on the Federal Election Commission to ensure new political parties can qualify for national party status, saying they need the ability to “fight fire with fire” after a Supreme Court ruling struck down federal limits on coordinated spending between political parties and federal candidates.

In a statement published July 1, the party responded to the Court’s recent decision in National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, saying the ruling gives political parties more authority to spend directly on behalf of their candidates. The party asserted that the decision will hurt voters unless independent parties outside the Democratic and Republican organizations are allowed to compete under the same rules.

“Political parties have too much power already. Full stop,” the Forward Party said. “This ruling gives the existing political elite even more ability to coordinate and control the narrative. It is a net negative for the average American voter (who doesn’t have millions of extra dollars to contribute to parties and candidates).”

The Supreme Court ruled on June 30 that federal limits on coordinated party expenditures violate the First Amendment, striking down restrictions on how much political party committees could spend in cooperation with their own federal candidates. The case dates back to November 2022, when the National Republican Senatorial Committee, National Republican Congressional Committee, then-U.S. Senate candidate J.D. Vance, and then-U.S. Representative Steven Chabot sued the agency in federal court, arguing that the limits restricted political speech by parties.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion and was joined by the Court’s other conservative justices. The opinion said existing campaign finance protections, including earmarking and disclosure rules, are enough to address concerns that donors could use parties to get around contribution limits. The ruling also overruled the Court’s 2001 decision in Federal Election Commission v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee, which had upheld limits on party coordinated expenditures.

Justice Elena Kagan dissented, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Their dissent warned that the ruling could allow donors to give much larger sums to party committees than they can give directly to candidates, creating new opportunities to route money through parties for candidate support.

Given the ruling, the Forward Party said it becomes more important for independent parties to qualify as national party committees and receive the same coordinated spending rights available to the major parties if they want to fairly compete. It warned that limiting the benefit to Democratic and Republican party committees would tilt the playing field against minor parties and their candidates.

“When the Forward Party applies to the FEC to be granted National Party Status,” the party said, “it will use today’s Supreme Court decision as one of the reasons we should be granted that status.”