Near the end of its term, the Supreme Court ruled this week in NRSC v FEC that political parties are not restricted in how much they can spend in political coordination with their candidates. The Democratic Party referred to this ruling as “an invitation for corruption” in an official statement, lauding how much more their candidates earn from individual donors. At face value, this is in line with the party’s opposition to Citizens United, which broke limits on PAC spending almost two decades ago. However, if Democrats really hate Super PACs, they should love the political implications of this ruling. 

Political parties are, currently, very weak institutions. In the post-Citizens United world, politicians are far more incentivized to give into the demands of interest groups, who can spend as much money as they want, than they are to stay in sync with their party’s platform. Before this week’s ruling, Americans who wanted to influence political figures were much better off donating to Super PACs than they were to the Republican or Democratic parties because the parties were limited in what they could do. In the wake of one court decision, however, the incentive to support PACs is slipping away and parties are much bigger players in elections than they were two weeks ago. This benefit for Democrats, admittedly, is more long-term than short-term. Immediately, the DNC’s financial debt looks dire and the RNC—in much better financial standing—emerges with a fundraising advantage. But, there’s no use crying over spilled milk. 

The Democratic Party, despite any rhetoric regarding the Republican elite, has a lot of rich friends. The DNC can at least try to blitzkrieg a fundraising campaign with the help of their friends in Hollywood. Furthermore, campaigns are not always won and lost on the dollar. Kamala Harris outraised and outspent Donald Trump in 2024, yet she still lost. The amount of money you spend is not nearly as important as how you spend it. The Democrats do not have to shatter fundraising records to win in 2026; they just need to raise some money and capitalize on their current political advantage by spending that money well. They have to use their new financial leverage over their candidates to get their disjointed, dysfunctional party on message.

It is no secret that the party is fractured. In New York City alone, there are primary winners like Darializa Avila Chevalier, who is a part of the Democratic Socialists of America, and primary winners like Ritchie Torres, a moderate, pro-Israel Democrat. Voters are confused what platform they are voting for when they vote blue. If the DNC can spend as much money as it can afford on advertisements for these candidates, then perhaps some semblance of a party platform can emerge. The American left’s infamously disjointed party has just been given the gift of organization by the Courts. My advice: make the most of it.