Supreme Court sides with GOP, loosens campaign spending rules
The Supreme Court on Tuesday sided with congressional Republicans in further loosening campaign finance limits, a decision likely to upend how political parties funnel millions of dollars into TV ads in the upcoming midterm elections.
In a 6-3 decision that split along ideological lines, the majority found that limits on how much political parties can spend in coordination with candidates violated parties’ constitutional free-speech rights. The decision is the latest in recent years to strike down provisions meant to restrict money in politics.
Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, writing for the majority, emphasized that the “Court’s decision today treats all political parties equally,” including the Democratic and Republican national committees.
“It will allow all political parties—including the DNC and RNC and the respective Senate and House campaign committees, as well as other parties and party committees—to participate more freely and compete more fully in the political process, and to coordinate more closely with their candidates,” Kavanaugh wrote.
In the near term, the ruling could favor Republicans, who have stockpiled over $125 million more than Democrats in their party committees ahead of the November midterms, The Washington Post has reported. The top Republican committees ended May with $256 million in the bank, with no debt. Top Democratic committees ended the month with $127 million in the bank, with $18 million in debt.
The decision allows the parties to spend as much as they want from those coffers in coordination with candidates, making the fundraising gap more pronounced.
Parties can now funnel money into campaigns, which are legally entitled to lower rates for TV and radio ads. Outside groups, by comparison, are not allowed to coordinate with campaigns and have to pay more for ads.
In a dissent, Justice Elena Kagan warned that the ruling could lead to corruption.
“The majority invalidates Congress’s restriction of coordinated expenditures, thus enabling a party to serve as an alternative checking account for a campaign,” Kagan wrote. “As a result, a donor will be able to give a party as much as half a million dollars (as compared to the $7,000 he can give directly to the candidate) to cover the candidate’s bills. And the candidate can seek just such a donation.”
“So the Court ushers back in the same opportunities for quid pro quo corruption that the contribution limits were meant to check,” she added. Kagan was joined in the dissent by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
The decision could also give more power back to national political parties relative to outside groups such as super PACs.
The court’s ruling is the latest this term that could affect the midterms.
In April, the court’s conservative majority weakened Section 2 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, touching off a scramble among some states to redraw their congressional maps to deliver seats to Republicans. The court on Monday rejected a Republican bid to limit mail-in balloting, keeping in place voting procedures in several states.
Vice President JD Vance and congressional Republicans had asked the court to remove limits on how much parties can spend in coordination with federal candidates on items such as TV ads and campaign expenses. They argued the existing limits hinder the parties’ free-speech rights and put parties in a weaker position than outside groups.
The Democratic Party opposed that bid, arguing that lifting limits on party spending would lead to a greater potential for quid pro quo corruption, allowing wealthy donors to dodge individual contribution limits by donating through parties instead.
The ruling overturns a 2001 precedent referred to as Colorado II, which found that the Constitution allowed limits on coordinated spending by parties to stop donors from getting around contribution limits.
Kavanaugh wrote that the earlier decision’s reasoning has become outdated, especially in the face of newer controls such as disclosure laws.
“Importantly, disclosure does not stand on its own,” Kavanaugh wrote. “Rather, the combination of the base contribution limits plus the earmarking rules plus the disclosure requirements together serve the government’s anti-circumvention interests here—without unduly restricting core political party speech.”
While Tuesday’s decision means that parties can spend unlimited amounts on candidates, there are still limits on how much individuals can donate. Individuals can give $3,500 per election to a candidate, but are able to give $44,300 per year to a national party committee. By contrast, super PACs can accept unlimited amounts from individuals. Super PACs are still restricted in how they coordinate with candidates.
“I don’t think that this opinion makes a mostly deregulated campaign finance system worse; in some ways it might make it better if one believes that parties are more responsible political actors than fly-by-night super PACs,” Rick Hasen, a law professor at the University of California at Los Angeles, wrote Tuesday in Election Law Blog. “But super PACs won’t go away.”
Over the past two decades, the Supreme Court has gradually loosened campaign finance regulations. The court, led by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., has been especially receptive to arguments that restrictions violate constitutional free-speech rights.
In the 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, the court ruled that corporations and other outside groups can spend unlimited amounts on candidates. Four years later, the court lifted the cap on how much wealthy donors can give to federal candidates, political parties and committees.
Republicans applauded Tuesday decision.
“This is a decisive First Amendment victory and a major win for the integrity of our political system,” Sen. Tim Scott (R-South Carolina), who chairs the National Republican Senatorial Committee, and Rep. Richard Hudson (R-North Carolina), chair of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said in a statement. “The Supreme Court made clear that the federal government has no authority to place arbitrary limits on how political parties support the candidates they nominate.”
Democrats said the decision would benefit the rich.
“Today’s ruling is a win for billionaire donors and special interests who want more influence over the GOP agenda and an invitation for corruption,” Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-New York), who serves as chair of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said in a statement. She was joined by fellow Democrats Rep. Suzan DelBene (Washington) and DNC Chair Ken Martin. They added Republicans “know voters will hold them accountable in November.”
Patrick Marley, Dan Merica and Hannah Knowles contributed to this report.
Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.
