> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://ivn.us/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # A Supreme Court Ruling Built for the Major Parties Is Helping Idaho Libertarians - URL: https://ivn.us/a-supreme-court-ruling-built-for-the-major-parties-is-helping-idaho-libertarians/ - Published: 2026-08-27T22:46:54.000Z - Updated: 2026-08-27T22:51:21.000Z - Description: A federal judge granted the Idaho Libertarian Party temporary freedom from state campaign spending limits, following a Supreme Court decision that removed federal caps on coordinated party spending with candidates. - Author: Shawn Griffiths - Tags: Campaign Finance, Third Parties, #Top-Story-3 Remember that Supreme Court decision 4 weeks ago that struck down federal limits on how much political parties could spend in coordination with their federal candidates? Critics asserted that it would unleash a flood of new political spending in elections. And it most likely will. At the time, there were also questions over how this would affect minor parties—both existing and new. While the decision was not limited to Republicans and Democrats, the concern was that an already substantial money gap would become impossible to close. But the Supreme Court’s impact is already trickling down to the states. And the Idaho Libertarian Party is getting the same spending freedom—at least temporarily. US District Judge Amanda Brailsford[ ](https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/idaho/iddce/1%3A2026cv00449/60220/12?ref=ivn.us)[granted a preliminary injunction](https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/idaho/iddce/1%3A2026cv00449/60220/12?ref=ivn.us) last week that prevents Idaho officials from enforcing state contribution limits against coordinated campaign spending by the state’s Libertarian Party. Idaho law currently states that political parties generally cannot contribute more than $2,000 per election to a legislative candidate and $10,000 per election to a statewide candidate. It also treats money spent in coordination with its candidates as an in-kind contribution subject to the same caps. For the Libertarian Party, that restriction is now temporarily gone. While the injunction is in place, the party can exceed state spending limits as it pertains to planned coordinated activity with its legislative and statewide candidates. The injunction isn’t a final ruling but will be in place until Brailsford comes to a decision. [This story](https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article316939693.html?ref=ivn.us) was brought to the attention of IVN by attorney Bill Baber, who started working on the lawsuit in this case immediately after the SCOTUS ruling in [*National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission*](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-621%5Fh315.pdf?ref=ivn.us). Baber called the injunction “a victory.” It only applies to the Libertarian Party, not every political party in the state. However, it opens the door for other political parties to pursue their own lawsuits and injunctions in this election cycle. It also does not eliminate ordinary limits on direct monetary contributions, nor does it remove reporting or disclosure requirements. ## **The Supreme Court Decision Behind It** In a 6-3 decision on June 30, SCOTUS ruled that the government generally cannot cap a political party's own spending on campaign activity simply because the party planned that spending with its candidates (i.e. coordinated spending). This does not mean parties can simply give unlimited cash directly to candidates. What they can now do is spend their own money on ads, mailers, and other campaign activities they plan with their candidates without a special cap. The majority reasoned that contribution limits, rules against donors earmarking money for particular candidates, and disclosure requirements provide less restrictive ways to guard against corruption. The dissenting opinion, written by Justice Elena Kagan, who was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, argued that removing coordinated spending limits would invite megadonors to use political parties to funnel their cash to benefit candidates. And because lifting a spending ceiling is inherently more useful to organizations with large amounts of money to spend, well-funded Republican and Democratic committees could take far greater advantage of the ruling than smaller parties. The Idaho ruling doesn’t change that reality. Removing the state’s caps does not suddenly give Libertarians the same fundraising networks of the Republican and Democratic Parties. They won’t be able to spend money they don’t have. However, Brailsford found that Idaho was restricting essentially the same type of coordinated party activity the Supreme Court had just protected. Her injunction means a smaller party–at least for now—does not have to stop coordinating with its candidates because it crosses a statutory ceiling. Other Idaho political parties technically remain subject to the existing limits because Brailsford expressly declined to extend the injunction to anyone beyond the Libertarian Party. However, the constitutional reasoning behind the decision could invite additional challenges. It could also push Idaho officials and lawmakers to reconsider how the state applies its campaign finance laws. There is no doubt that the biggest beneficiaries of the Supreme Court’s ruling will be the two biggest political parties in the US. The system benefits them in so many ways, not just in fundraising and spending. But Idaho shows that minor parties do not have to just sit on the sidelines and accept restrictions placed on them.