The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a Republican-led challenge, supported by President Donald Trump’s administration, aimed at removing restrictions on the amount of money political parties can spend in coordination with candidates for federal elections.
This review ultimately concerns a provision of federal election law that has been in place for over 50 years, and it goes against the requests from Democrats to maintain the existing law. The Supreme Court had previously upheld this provision in 2001.
Driving the news: Since Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court in 2005, a conservative majority has consistently overturned various limits imposed by Congress on the raising and spending of money to influence elections. The 2010 Citizens United decision notably opened the door to unlimited independent spending in federal elections.
The big picture: Removing limits on party spending could potentially allow significant donors to bypass individual contribution caps to a candidate by directing unrestricted amounts to the party, with the understanding that the funds would be used on behalf of the candidate. Supporters of the current law argue that this creates a loophole in campaign finance regulations.
- The case is scheduled to be argued in the fall, and many experts, such as election law specialist Richard Hasen from the University of California, anticipate that the court will rule against the limits, citing the prevalence of super PAC spending that has weakened political parties and worsened corruption and inequality.
- Notably, the Justice Department typically defends federal laws when they are challenged in court. However, the Trump administration made an exception and notified the court that it believes the law violates free-speech protections in the First Amendment.
Go deeper: The lawsuit that brought forth this challenge was filed by the Republican committees for House and Senate candidates, along with two Ohio Republicans in Congress, in 2022. The case revolves around coordinated party spending for Senate and House races and the limits placed on such spending.
- Additionally, the Supreme Court has also agreed to adjudicate a dispute between Cox Communications, an internet service provider, and record labels over illegal music downloads by Cox customers. This lawsuit was led by Sony Music Entertainment and revolves around Cox’s liability for ongoing digital piracy activities by its customers.
