(The Center Square) - A U.S. Supreme Court ruling is raising questions about whether Washington can continue enforcing state laws that limit spending that political parties coordinate with their candidates.

In a 6-3 decision, SCOTUS determined last month that federal caps on coordinated campaign spending with candidates by political parties violated the First Amendment. It came as Washington officials were preparing for the state’s upcoming primary election, which is currently open for voting through Aug. 4.

While the ruling applies to federal limits, it raised concerns Thursday about potential vulnerabilities in state campaign finance laws. The Washington Public Disclosure Commission suggested in a meeting that day that state limits on coordinated spending by political parties could now invite costly litigation.

“So there's a lot of similarity with the state law and what was under consideration in the federal law, but I think it would be premature to say that there's a definite effect on state law until we get a little bit more time to analyze that,” general counsel Sean Flynn explained to the commissioners on Thursday.

Hoping to avoid a declaratory-judgment lawsuit, the commission asked staff to develop guidance on whether the state can still enforce limits on spending that political parties coordinate with candidates.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission ruling overturned 2001 precedent that upheld federal limits on coordinated spending. Flynn says it may narrow what PDC can enforce to prevent quid pro quos since SCOTUS decided earmarking and disclosure laws are sufficient.

“Direct limits on contributions to candidates, plus the earmarking requirements and the disclosure laws provide sufficient protection against circumvention and ultimate quid pro quo corruption, without further need to limit party coordinated spending,” Flynn wrote in a July 16 PDC memo on the SCOTUS ruling.

Under state law, there are three ways that an individual, committee or party can donate to candidates.

For individuals, state law limits cash contributions to $1,200 per election for legislative candidates and $2,400 per election for state executive, port commissioner and court candidates.

In-kind contributions are subject to the same cap, but represent the value of coordinated assistance rather than direct cash.

The third type of contribution is called independent expenditures. They represent the value of goods and services rendered to a campaign, like in-kind contributions; however, independent expenditures differ in that they don’t involve coordination and aren’t subject to spending limits like the other two types.

What’s at stake are limits that political parties must adhere to with coordinated in-kind contributions, such as paying for campaign staff or advertisements and voter outreach developed with a candidate.

“Constitutional text, history, and precedent establish that the political-party coordinated-expenditure limits violate the First Amendment,” U.S. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in the majority’s opinion.

Cash and in-kind contributions are subject to voter-based limits when they come from a political party rather than a hard dollar amount. The limit is equal to 80 cents per voter in the jurisdiction if it comes from a state party, and 40 cents per voter if it comes from a county or legislative district committee.

That allows parties to spend more in highly populated districts rather than those with fewer voters, but the formula is also subject to inflation at the PDC’s discretion. For 2026, the commission set the cap at $1.20 per registered voter per cycle, but the SCOTUS decision may call that into question entirely.

If the SCOTUS ruling were to impact the state’s limits on coordinated spending, political parties could spend millions of dollars on advertising in districts that typically would’ve been capped much lower before.

“The First Amendment permits campaign finance restrictions that are narrowly tailored to protect against quid pro quo corruptions and its appearance. Caps on a party’s coordinated expenditures pass that test with flying colors,” U.S. Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the court's dissenting opinion.

According to PDC records reviewed Thursday, the Washington State Republican Party has donated roughly $13,750 in direct cash to four candidates so far for the 2026 election; it has not reported any in-kind contributions to any particular candidate.

The Washington State Democratic Party hasn’t reported any direct cash contributions to candidates so far this election cycle, but it has reported about $51,000 in in-kind contributions to around 46 candidates.

County parties and partisan caucus and legislative district committees are subject to separate limits than the state parties, with those total in-kind contributions exceeding $125,000 on each side of the aisle.

The Washington State Democratic Party and Democratic legislative caucus committees donated $1.3 million in in-kind contributions to Gov. Bob Ferguson’s 2024 campaign. Including cash contributions, the party and those committees’ 2024 campaign donations to Ferguson totaled approximately $3 million.

WAGOP and Republican legislative caucus committees, by contrast, donated about $50,000 to Semi Bird in 2024 when he ran against Ferguson as a Republican, and about $214,750 to Dave Reichert, who ultimately faced Ferguson as the Republican frontrunner on the general election ballot that year.

The PDC asked Flynn to return with some guidance sometime in the next year, but noted that they are reserving judgment on the applicability of the SCOTUS decision on the state’s campaign finance laws.

“We're seeking guidance on what we should do in the future,” PDC Chair J. Robert Leach said Thursday.