The U.S. Supreme Court has the opportunity to restore free speech and accountability in campaigns and elections by rejuvenating political parties when it begins its new term in October.

The court announced it will consider a case initiated by the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) along with then-U.S. Sen. JD Vance and U.S. Rep. Steve Chabot, both Republicans from Ohio, to remove the limits on political parties’ coordinated spending on behalf of candidates.

The Democratic National Committee (DNC), the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC, and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) are all opposing the NRSC.

Political parties have been severely limited in how much they can spend in direct coordination with federal candidates since 1974 which is based on voting age population. Currently, state parties are limited to $63,600 for U.S. House candidates while U.S. Senate candidates are limited according to the size of their state such as $127,200 for Alaska and $3,946,100 for California.

Colorado political parties are limited to $603,700 for U.S. Senate candidates. Over the past 52 years, vast amounts of money have moved from candidates and political parties to shadowy, essentially unaccountable independent “Super PACs” that have no limits on raising and spending money while parties and candidates labor under ridiculous limits.

A New York University law professor, Richard H. Pildes, said that outside groups are dominating campaigns at the expense of parties and candidates.

“It would, at a minimum, open up more opportunities for political parties to work with their campaigns. More expansively, it could lead to political parties regaining some of the ground they lost to Super PACs over the last twenty years.”

An attempt to eliminate limits on parties was rejected by the Supreme Court in 2001 by a vote of 5 to 4 but the court has dramatically changed since then. The current 6-3 conservative majority is probably more inclined to see these limits as restraining free speech.

Why is it preferable for political parties to have more latitude in spending money directly on candidates?

When a voter sees an ad on social media or on television or gets a mail piece from a political party or candidate, there is instant accountability. Voters know exactly where that communication came from and they understand that the party or candidate is responsible for that message.

Super PACs wrap themselves in nice sounding anonymity with such names as “The Committee for Good Government” or “Citizens for a Better America” but voters have no idea who is behind these groups or who funds them.

Political parties and candidates are strictly forbidden under penalty of criminal prosecution from coordinating with these groups so they have no control over how these unrestricted funds are being spent.

While this eventual decision by the Supreme Court could greatly improve campaign finance laws, the ultimate reform should be the abolishment of all limits on contributions and expenditures by parties and candidates while requiring full and immediate disclosure.

In this day and age of instantaneous communications and direct access to publicly available data by voters, there is no reason to impose phony, feel-good limits that allegedly make the process better. Voters can decide for themselves if a candidate or political party is accepting too much money from any person or entity.

None other than the University of Denver came to this conclusion in 2013 when its Strategic Issues Program did a deep dive into campaign finance and how to improve the system. DU’s final report, “Money, Elections and Citizens United: Campaign Finance Reform for Colorado,” declared that the state should “enact legislation that removes limits on political contributions to candidates and political parties” along with enhanced disclosure requirement.

This would also level the playing field when wealthy candidates finance their own campaigns such as Gov. Jared Polis who largely personally financed his campaigns for Congress and governor much to the chagrin of his Democratic and Republican opponents.

Conversely, Elon Musk spent hundreds of millions supporting President Donald Trump’s campaign in 2024.

Only by eliminating limits on candidates and political parties will the advantage of wealthy, self-funding candidates be offset.

Voters are smart. They don’t need to be coddled by feel-good laws instigated by self-declared “public interest” groups who only make the political process more complicated and less accountable and transparent.

Dick Wadhams is a former Colorado Republican state chairman who managed campaigns for U.S. Sens. Hank Brown and Wayne Allard, and Gov. Bill Owens. He was campaign manager for U.S. Senate Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota when Thune unseated Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle in 2004.