What a Supreme Court decision means for money and politics.

From Marketplace in Washington, I'm Kimberly Adams. The Supreme Court finished its session yesterday

with major opinions on birthright citizenship, rights for transgender athletes, and on campaign

finance. We're going to focus on that last one. In National Republican

Senatorial Committee versus Federal Election Commission, the court struck down limits on how

much political parties can spend in coordination with candidates. As Marketplace's Henry

Epp reports, without those caps, the way parties raise and spend money could quickly change.

Before this decision, national political parties had to operate two sets of funds,

one for coordinated spending where the main office consults with the candidate's campaign,

and another larger one for independent spending,

where the party isn't allowed to coordinate with the candidate,

says Robin Kalladne, a political science

professor at Temple University. Now, there is no distinction between that independent expenditure

spending arm and the central office. So candidates and parties can jointly decide how to spend

all of that money. That new freedom will likely lead to parties asking more donors

for more money, says Ki-Hong, head of political law at the law firm Skadden.

They are going to point to this case to essentially say, look, you know, it's a new day,

your money can be used for unlimited, coordinated expenditures.

Political parties have lost fundraising ground to super PACs, which can accept unlimited amounts

from donors.

The court majority suggested that getting rid of coordination limits could shift some of that

influence back to parties.

...