The Supreme Court has rightly torn down another pillar of the campaign finance cartel that muzzles political speech and entrenches the administrative state. Striking down limits on coordinated spending between national parties and candidates restores the ability of voters and organizations to pool resources freely, exposing the old rules as nothing more than incumbent protection dressed up as reform. This matters because it shifts power away from Washington regulators and back toward the people who actually contest elections. Those restrictions never aligned with the original meaning of the First Amendment, which guards robust association and expression rather than licensing Congress to ration political advocacy. Limited government demands that parties and candidates operate without arbitrary federal ceilings that distort the marketplace of ideas. Federalism reinforces the point by leaving electoral mechanics closer to the states and citizens they serve. The Constitution was written to prevent exactly this kind of centralized control over political competition.