A 1974 rule enacted after the Watergate scandal limited the amount of money political parties could spend in conjunction with candidates for Congress and the White House.
SCOTUS hears lawsuit over changes to campaign finance caps
The Supreme Court is ruling on a case involving Vice President J.D. Vance that could change campaign finance limits.
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on June 30 canceled one of the remaining checks for political money. This is a decision in line with recent court decisions that favor the right to free speech over concerns about potential corruption.
Reversing a quarter-century-old ruling, the high court sided 6-3 with Republicans, including Vice President J.D. Vance, who challenged a more than 50-year-old rule capping the amount political parties can spend on coordination with candidates.
The rule, aimed at preventing wealthy donors from circumventing restrictions they can place on federal candidates by funneling money through political parties, was passed in 1974 as part of Congress’ response to Watergate and upheld by the Supreme Court in 2001.
The court’s ruling could benefit Republicans, at least in the short term, because Democratic candidates are better at raising small donations and are less reliant on party funding.
And advocates fighting the influence of deep-pocketed donors worry that Republicans will use their victory to pursue remaining campaign finance restrictions.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the court’s conservative majority, said the ruling “treats all political parties equally.”
Both parties “will be able to participate more freely in the political process and compete more fully,” he wrote.
Kavanaugh dismissed concerns about possible corruption and said there are other checks to prevent corruption, such as disclosure rules.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Elena Kagan said the majority was “abandoning the rules necessary to protect the integrity of our democracy.”
The High Court broke the limits bit by bit.
The Supreme Court has chipped away at spending and funding limits, ruling that they are unreasonable restrictions on “political speech” under the First Amendment. Key decisions include a 2010 ruling in a case called Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that paved the way for the creation of independent political action committees known as “super PACs.”
Republicans argued that since then, big-name donors have turned to super PACs, which allow them to receive unlimited donations. Republicans said this turned super PACs into “shadow parties” and diminished the role of actual political parties.
Republicans also said there is no evidence that limiting the amount of money political parties can spend in consultation with candidates will prevent corruption.
“That’s why no one has identified cases in which donors actually laundered bribes to candidates through coordinated party spending, even though 28 states have acknowledged it,” Noel Francisco, an attorney representing Republicans, told the court during oral arguments in December.
Restrictions supported by Democrats
But Democratic attorney Marc Elias said removing the limit would leave few protections for donors seeking help.
Both political parties and super PACs can spend as much money as they want to support candidates, unless they coordinate with the candidates.
Political parties can also spend limited amounts at the direction of candidates.
In a 2001 decision upholding adjusted spending limits, the court said that when a political party pays for advertising at the request of a candidate, that spending has the same effect as a direct donation to the candidate. Therefore, it may be regulated.
The court has also previously held that donors may use political parties to circumvent the floor because they can give more to political parties than they give to candidates, increasing the likelihood that donors will expect something in return for their support.
The Trump administration’s Justice Department supported the challenge.
Republicans accepted the decision in 2022 with a challenge launched when Vance was running for Senate. Others involved in the effort included then-Rep. Steve Chabot, National Republican Senatorial Committee and National Republican Congressional Committee;
The Cincinnati-based Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the challenge, saying it was bound by the high court’s 2001 ruling upholding the law.
The Justice Department upheld campaign finance rules during the Biden administration, but reversed course after President Donald Trump returned to the White House.
As a result, the Supreme Court appointed attorney Roman Martinez to defend the Court of Appeals’ decision.
Another solution: court-ordered off-ramps
Martinez argued in part that the court could avoid ruling on what he called “highly politicized cases.”
There is no need for the court to get involved now because the court is only supposed to decide live disputes and there is no imminent threat of the federal government enforcing limits on coordinated spending, he said.
“No one thinks that President Trump would implement this law and target his own vice president,” Martinez said during oral arguments before the National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission.
Other election incidents
The case is one of several the court has ruled this term could affect the 2026 midterm elections.
The justices have already issued sweeping rulings that water down key provisions of the Voting Rights Act and make it easier for candidates to challenge voting laws.
And the majority said states can count mail-in ballots that are postmarked by Election Day but arrive afterward.
