Politics has always involved money. Just like any marketing endeavor, which is essentially what political campaigning boils down to, it takes money for a candidate to get their message out to potential voters.

The trouble is that money has long been used by corrupt individuals for nefarious purposes, both in politics and in other spheres of life.

Supposed concern over money corrupting American politics led lawmakers to pass the McCain-Feingold Act in 2002, which imposed limits on soft-money contributions to political parties.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. FEC in 2010 overturned part of this provision, noting that McCain-Feingold violated the First Amendment’s free speech protections. The Court recognized that funding was speech.

And now, the Court has put another chink in the campaign-finance-limiting agenda.

In handing down its 6-3 decision in National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, the Court this week reiterated that spending is speech.

Writing the majority decision, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote, “The Court’s decision today treats all political parties equally. It will allow all political parties — including the DNC and RNC and the respective Senate and House campaign committees, as well as other parties and party committees — to participate more freely and compete more fully in the political process.”

He further noted that arbitrary spending limits put upon political parties’ coordinated expenditures restrict their “speech in support of their own candidates during political campaigns.”

Currently, super PACs are not beholden to spending limits on their favored candidates’ campaigns, but political parties are. The Federal Election Commission limits how much funding political parties can expend on candidates depending upon their locations. Last year, parties could spend upwards of $127,200 and $3,946,100 on House and Senate candidates, respectively.

“Restrictions on campaign expenditures for political speech are permitted only in the exceedingly rare circumstances where they promote a compelling interest and are the ‘least restrictive means to further the articulated interest,’” wrote Kavanaugh, adding, “The Court now recognizes ‘only one legitimate governmental interest for restricting campaign finances: preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption.’”

This decision is a huge win for the Republican National Committee heading into the upcoming midterms, as the RNC holds a massive financial advantage over the Democratic National Committee — $125 million in cash compared to just $14.8 million.

The chairs of the NRSC and NRCC, Senator Tim Scott and Representative Richard Hudson, respectively, praised the decision in a joint statement: “This is a decisive First Amendment victory and a major win for the integrity of our political system. The Supreme Court made clear that the federal government has no authority to place arbitrary limits on how political parties support the candidates they nominate. 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. We are ready to fully support our candidates and put them in the strongest possible position to win in 2026 and beyond.”

Removing these spending caps will help Republicans coordinate spending on campaigns and candidates they deem to be the best uses of funds. This should help boost the GOP’s election prospects in November.