Politics

Supreme Court loosens campaign finance laws, opening up flood of midterm cash

Published

2 months ago

June 30, 2026

The Supreme Court struck down limits on coordinated spending between candidates and political parties on Tuesday, a win for Republicans that will fundamentally change how tens of millions of dollars are spent in congressional elections.

The decision will have an almost immediate impact on the midterms. Removing the limit on coordinated spending effectively gives candidates direct control over a far greater amount of money being spent on their races. It is also likely to increase the flood of political advertising that hits the airwaves each fall.

The 6-3 decision, which divided the court along its usual ideological lines, held that the limits violate the First Amendment.

The decision is a blow to Democrats, who argued that eliminating the limit on coordination would put more power into the hands of large donors who can cut bigger checks to party committees than to candidates. Republicans tend to get more money from large donors, while Democrats have been more reliant on small-dollar donors.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the majority, called the limits a “severe infringement on First Amendment-protected political speech.” He also argued the ruling eliminating the limits could bolster political parties generally.

“To uphold the political-party coordinated-expenditure limits here could therefore help consign political parties to continued second-tier status as compared to outside groups,” Kavanaugh wrote. “Weakened political parties distort the political system.”

President Donald Trump hailed the ruling allowing parties to spend unlimited amounts in coordination with individual campaigns.

“The Supreme Court just took restrictions off political spending!” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “A BIG WIN FOR REPUBLICANS and, more importantly, The First Amendment!”

The National Republican Senatorial Committee brought the case seeking to overturn the limits in 2022 alongside now-Vice President J.D. Vance’s Senate campaign. Trump’s Justice Department declined to defend the law in court, while Democratic groups intervened to oppose the lawsuit.

“By striking down these unconstitutional caps on coordinated spending, the Court has restored core political speech and ensured parties can compete on a level playing field,” NRSC Chair Tim Scott (R-S.C.) and National Republican Congressional Committee Chair Richard Hudson (R-N.C.) said in a joint statement. “We are ready to fully support our candidates and put them in the strongest possible position to win in 2026 and beyond.”

Democrats, who are already staring down substantial disadvantage in party fundraising this midterm cycle and are worried that the ruling will only amplify the impact of that disparity, were quick to deride the decision Tuesday.

“Today’s ruling is a win for billionaire donors and special interests who want more influence over the GOP agenda and an invitation for corruption,” Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chair Kirsten Gillibrand, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chair Suzan DelBene and Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin said in a joint statement.

The ruling strengthens the parties themselves, allowing them to directly support their preferred candidates in a way that could empower their roles in the political ecosystem — and potentially weaken the influence of super PACs. Party committees on both sides have been preparing for the possibility for months and the decision is likely to have an immediate impact on campaign spending ahead of the November midterms.

Previously, coordinated spending between candidates and party committees, such as the NRCC or the DCCC, was capped, with the specific amounts depending on the size of the district or state. Those limits no longer apply.

That significantly alters the campaign finance landscape because parties can accept far larger donations than individual candidates — $44,300 per year for national party committees compared with $3,500 per cycle for candidates. Removing the limit on coordinated spending effectively gives candidates the ability to control a far greater sum of money that is being spent on their race.

That could also substantially change the makeup of political advertising on television, because candidates get far lower rates on TV ads than other groups. If their coordinated efforts with campaigns get the similarly low rate, they would have far more cash to tap to flood the airwaves, while super PACs will still have to pay a higher rate. As a result, campaigns might spend more of their budget on TV advertising, while super PACs may be more likely to pick up other campaigning costs, such as mailers and digital advertising.

Democrats have largely had the advantage in candidate fundraising, which has generally given them a leg up in battlegrounds when candidate fundraising was the most important. But NRSC has slightly more cash on hand than the DSCC, according to recent campaign finance reports, while the Republican National Committee has wildly outraised the DNC. Those party funds could now give the GOP the financial advantage in key states.

The court’s decision additionally eliminates the need for parties to mount their own independent expenditure arms, where they have traditionally spent tens of millions of dollars.

The decision is the latest in a series of blows the high court has dealt to campaign finance regulation over the past two decades. The 2010 Citizens United and Speechnow.org decisions enabled the rise of super PACs with no limit on donations. In 2014, the court struck down aggregate limits on individual donations. And in 2022, it struck down limits on candidates using donor funds to repay personal loans they had made to their campaigns.

“Today’s decision follows a string of disastrous campaign finance rulings from the Roberts Court that began with Citizens United,” Michael Beckel, director of money-in-politics reform at Issue One, said in a statement. “By eliminating the limits that have long governed how much money parties can spend in coordination with candidates, the Supreme Court has further empowered wealthy donors and special interests with outsized influence in elections.”

Politics

These mayors live along Lake America’s shores. But they won’t be calling it that.

Published

11 minutes ago

September 2, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Robert Corradino has never lived anywhere but Oswego, New York. As the only commercial port city on the southeastern shore of Lake Ontario, everything bears the lake’s name — the streets, the convention center, the historic fort.

And in his first term as mayor, Corradino — a Republican who said he previously voted for President Donald Trump — said he worries that a distant political feud is threatening to erase part of his city’s history.

In the days following Trump’s executive order renaming Lake Ontario to Lake America, Corradino and other mayors in upstate New York said Trump’s decision is “regrettable” and could upset voters in the region — and even further impact an economy so closely tied to the U.S.’s relationship with Canada.

“The water is part of our identity,” Corradino said. “Not only our identity, but the economy and the history of the lake is tied to the city.”

Oswego, a city of 17,000, is split between Democrats and Republicans, Corradino said. However, the larger Oswego County is one of the reddest in the state and 61 percent of its voters went for Trump in the 2024 election.

Yet on Monday, several Oswego County legislators from both parties approved a resolution rejecting the new name, out of concern for the cost of the rebrand on taxpayers and businesses. The resolution said it does not intend to diminish the authority of the federal government, rather it aims to “recognize the longstanding historical and regional significance of the name Lake Ontario.”

Last Thursday night, at Oswego’s weekly summer concert series, Corradino said everyone he interacted with said they didn’t support the name change and they weren’t sure why it was happening. The general sentiment, he said, was frustration.

Asked about the issues Oswego residents actually care about, Corradino said his constituents are concerned about less immigration enforcement and the war with Iran.

“In general the consensus I see is it just seems like the country is heading in a direction that we’re not all happy about,” Corradino said.

The pushback is not isolated to Oswego. Hours after Trump signed the executive order, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat who runs the only state that borders Lake Ontario, said in a post to social media, “New York won’t be calling it that.”

And there’s been mixed adaptation nationally — similar to when Trump dictated that the Gulf of Mexico now go by Gulf of America.

Signs mark the entrance to the Lake Ontario State Parkway on Aug. 25, 2026, in Rochester, N.Y.

On Saturday, Google Maps, which uses the U.S. Geographic Names Information System that comes from official government sources, officially changed the name. Map users on the American side will see “Lake America” while users in Canada will see “Lake Ontario.” For users outside of both the U.S. and Canada, they will see both names. Apple Maps followed suit, using the same naming approach as Google.

But MapQuest — the once-dominant mapping service of the 1990s and early 2000s — rocketed up app stores after refusing to use Lake America.

Long before the lake was renamed, Alex Morgia — a Democrat and mayor of Sackets Harbor, N.Y. — said his community has been grappling with the deteriorating relations between the U.S. and Canada.

Sackets Harbor, located along the eastern shores of Lake Ontario, is home to a number of Canadian residents. A village of 1,400 people, it was a major military outpost and naval command center during the War of 1812, when the U.S. clashed with British and Canadian forces.

Since 1971, the village has hosted the Can-Am festival to commemorate the village’s Canadian-American heritage.

The festival “reminds everyone that it’s not very nice to be at odds with your neighbor,” Morgia said. “Having good relationships with your international neighbors is important, particularly for people that live along the border on either side.”

Last year’s festival was the first time residents began making floats of maple leaves and Canadian flags to protest the Trump administration’s calls to make Canada the “51st state” and to remind Sackets Harbor residents that there were Canadian citizens among them, Morgia said.

This year, as Trump has continued to roll out tariffs against Canadian products, and relations with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney continued to worsen, Morgia joked that the theme for this year’s parade should’ve been “we’re sorry.”

The overall atmosphere at this year’s parade in July was “somber,” Morgia said.

“I kind of hoped that the Canadian issue had gone by the wayside, but you know [Trump] seems to bring it up when he needs to,” Morgia said.

Sackets Harbor is split between Democrats and Republicans, Morgia said. Jefferson County, which encompasses Sackets Harbor, overwhelmingly supported Trump in the 2024 election with 61 percent of its vote.

“It’s a three-hour drive to Montreal, a two-hour drive to Toronto and a six-hour drive to New York City,” Morgia said. “The biggest metropolitan cities near us are Canadian, and a lot of North Country businesses and people rely on the southern part of Canada. … I’m hopeful that voters will think about that at the polls in November and in 2028.”

In the village of Sodus Point, N.Y. — which is located along the southern border of the Great Lake — Republican Mayor Pat Nolan said he’s disappointed by the name-change as “Ontario” is rooted in the Indigenous history of the region.

The name Ontario, is largely believed to come from Iroquoian roots, meaning “beautiful lake” or “sparkling water,” according to the Canadian government. The Canadian province of Ontario, is named after the lake.

A village of 1,000 people, Sodus Point is located in Wayne County, where Trump received 61 percent of the vote in 2024. Nolan was elected in a write-in campaign last year.

“My hope is that, rather than allowing this decision to become another wedge that further divides people,” Nolan wrote in an email, “it can encourage a broader discussion about the history of this great body of water, the Indigenous people who first gave it its name and the generations of communities that have grown along its shores.”

Politics

Trump invites battleground Republicans to Rose Garden dinner

Published

9 hours ago

September 2, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

President Donald Trump has invited a group of GOP lawmakers including Republicans in competitive races to dine with him Wednesday night at the White House as many in the party press the president to unleash his massive war chest ahead of the November elections, according to four people with direct knowledge of the matter.

The White House plans to hold the dinner in the Rose Garden, according to two of the people who know about the invitation. The people were granted anonymity to discuss private planning. Some House Republicans in tough races were sent invitations, including Reps. Derrick Van Orden (R-Wis.) and Tom Barrett (R-Mich.), who are planning to attend, along with a wider group of GOP lawmakers and senators.

“Of course,” Van Orden said when asked if he would go to the dinner.

The White House invited at least several dozen lawmakers, according to two people familiar with the invitation list. The dinner also comes ahead of next week’s GOP midterm convention in Dallas, though attendance from Republican lawmakers is expected to be mixed. Barrett, for example, said in an interview Tuesday he is not planning to attend the convention and will instead campaign and spend time with his family. A White House spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Trump’s political operation, MAGA Inc., has spent little of its $400 million war chest to help GOP lawmakers. But he recently helped boost Sen. Darline Graham over the line in her heated primary.

Senate Republicans are eager for him to start spending for Ken Paxton in Texas as he has thus far been outspent on the airwaves by Democrat James Talarico and his allies.