Party Machines Weren’t So Bad After All
This opinion piece argues that the Supreme Court's decision to strike down limits on party-coordinated spending is a positive development for democracy. The author contends that stronger political parties are better equipped to manage coalitions and compromise than the current system of small-dollar, ideologically driven donors.
Why it matters
It challenges the prevailing reformist narrative that small-dollar donations are inherently better for democracy, suggesting instead that party-led structures provide more stability.
By empowering political parties, the Supreme Court has delivered a win for American democracy.
Illustration by Alicia Tatone / Sources: Getty. July 13, 2026, 6:30 AM ET Share Save This is not a sentence written often lately, but the U.S. Supreme Court has just done a great service to American democracy.
On June 30, the Court struck down federal limits on the amount of money that political parties can spend in coordination with individual federal candidates. Some early reports on National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission represented the 6–3 decision as a victory for big money. To some extent, it is—but for once, in a good way.
Get smarter about the news
Sign up free for a feed built around what you actually care about, Dive Deeper research on any story, and the full text of every article.
Create free accountAlready have an account? Sign in