U.S. Rep. Eric Sorensen, D-Moline, criticized a Supreme Court decision that struck down limits on how much political parties can spend in coordination with their candidates.
The court ruled 6-3 on June 30 in National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission that the coordinated spending caps violate the First Amendment, overturning a 2001 precedent months before the midterm elections.
During his visit to the Peoria Neighborhood House Tuesday Sorensen, a Democrat who represents Illinois' 17th Congressional District encompassing Peoria, Bloomington-Normal, the Quad Cities and Rockford, was asked what the ruling means for him.
"Well, look, we need to get money out of our politics, first and foremost, and I learned that from the very first time that I ran for Congress," Sorensen said.
"I don't come from generational wealth. I am one of the least wealthy members of Congress, but what it takes to win a congressional seat today is outrageous," he said.
"The fact that these congressional races can be $10, $20, $30, $50 million — it should be the people that decide these races, not outside groups."
While not quite that much, Sorensen, too, has run multimillion dollar congressional campaigns, raising $5 million for his 2024 race and, thus far, bringing in $1.8 million for his 2026 campaign, according to Federal Election Commission filings. A high profile incumbent, Democratic U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, had already exceeded $30 million in contributions leading up to the 2026 midterm elections.
Sorensen said his position doesn't change with the court's decision.
"What happened here is you saw that the Supreme Court said, we're OK if there's more money and we don't know where it's coming from."
Before the ruling, parties faced limits on coordinated spending with congressional campaigns — between $65,300 and $130,600 for House races in this election cycle, according to the Federal Election Commission. Parties could already spend unlimited amounts independently, as long as that spending wasn't coordinated with a candidate.
Writing for the majority in the court's opinion, Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh said the limits imposed "a severe and direct restriction on free speech" and put political parties at a disadvantage compared to outside groups like super PACs.
In the dissent, Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the minority, warned the ruling means a party "can serve as the candidate's checking account," and said the decision leaves campaign finance law increasingly unable to prevent corruption.
