Republican Party campaign committees are gearing up to pump tens of millions of dollars into campaigns across the country as they try to protect narrow House and Senate majorities.

Thanks to the Supreme Court, they can now coordinate with candidates on all of it.

The Supreme Court’s Tuesday decision nixing limits on coordinated spending between political parties and candidates will particularly buoy Senate Republicans, who brought the challenge and often rely on larger donors than Democrats.

The change will mean GOP campaign groups like the National Republican Senatorial Committee, a plaintiff in the case, can offset the fundraising deficits of Republican candidates to their Democratic rivals in high-profile Senate races like North Carolina, Georgia, and Texas.

“Historically, most NRSC advertising was produced and distributed independently — it could not be informed by strategic conversations with the campaign about message, targeting, timing, or creative,” the NRSC wrote in a memo to supporters. “Those restrictions are now gone.”

While Republican candidates have for the most part trailed their Democratic counterparts, the Republican National Committee maintains a towering advantage over the Democratic National Committee.

The RNC is just as prepared to unleash some $125 million that it had in the bank at the end of May, on top of President Donald Trump’s war chest of more than $300 million that his super PAC, MAGA Inc., reported having. Those figures eclipse the DNC, which said at the end of May it only had $14.8 million cash on hand.

The GOP Senate and House campaign arms hold narrow cash advantages over the Democratic committees.

Caps from the Federal Election Commission on such coordination range from $130,600 to $4,071,800 for Senate candidates and up to $65,300 for most House candidates and were designed as guardrails against corruption and instituted in the 1970s. Now, candidates and party fundraising arms can spend unlimited amounts in conjunction with one another, including for events, staff, and travel.

Donor limits remain unchanged for candidates and campaigns, and contributions cannot be earmarked for specific candidates. Divvying out the money remains at the discretion of those like the NRSC. But with unlimited coordination, opponents of the ruling argue it undermines contribution limits.

The court’s conservative justices agreed with Republican plaintiffs that the regulations violated the First Amendment. The GOP was particularly eager for the ruling in hopes of gaining access to cheaper TV ad rates afforded to candidates, “anywhere from 3x to 13x cheaper,” according to the NRSC. It was not clear if the coordinated buys will be given the candidate rate, as the issue is currently being litigated in a lower court.

The Elias Law Group, the Democratic-linked firm that defended Democrats’ appeal, challenged that thinking.

“Republicans will now claim that this gives their national party committees access to the lowest unit rate for television advertising, but that is not what the law requires,” lawyers Jacquelyn Lopez and Rachel Jacobs said in a statement. “Even the Trump Administration’s own Solicitor General told the Supreme Court that broadcasters are required to offer those rates for candidate spending, not party spending, whether coordinated or independent.”

Democratic campaigns were already fundraising in response to the ruling and pitching supporters for contributions to counteract the win for Republicans, which came down along the Supreme Court’s ideological divide. It was the latest in a string of rulings since 2010 that have rolled back federal campaign finance laws, starting that year with the Citizens United v. FEC decision allowing unlimited super PAC spending.

Tuesday’s ruling in NRSC v. FEC will make super PACs less important, drive more donations to regular PACs, and could mean media companies take a financial hit if ad buys are available at the lower candidate rate.

The NRSC announced it would sunset its independent expenditure program, which, like a super PAC, cannot coordinate with candidates and purchases airtime at a more expensive rate, and move “all NRSC-funded voter contact” to coordinated spending.

“Coordinated buys qualify for Lowest Unit Charge (LUC) on broadcast and cable,” the NRSC memo explained.

The chairmen of the House and Senate GOP campaign arms said the court “restored core political speech and ensured parties can compete on a level playing field.” Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-OH), who’s angling to become the next NRSC chairman, called it “a massive win for the First Amendment that gives power back to political parties over dark money Super PACs.”

Democrats fumed, condemning the decision as an “invitation for corruption” and fearing it could hinder their ability to retake the upper chamber that Republicans control 53-47.

“Today’s decision eviscerates one of the last fragile guardrails on coordinated political spending and will unleash a new arms race of campaign spending, bringing in even more special interest money to our elections,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said.