The Supreme Court on Tuesday loosened limits on the amount of money political parties can spend in conjunction with candidates for office, recognizing that winning Republicans argued that the limits violated the First Amendment.
The 6-3 decision, which was overruled by the court’s liberal justices, overturns decades-old bundled spending limits and withstands a previous legal challenge 25 years earlier.
In doing so, it expands the role that money will play in American politics—a role that had already been expanded by decisions that removed restrictions on independent campaign spending by parties and organizations.
The Democratic Party organizations opposed the challenge brought by the National Republican Senatorial Committee, saying that there is no Constitutional reason for the Supreme Court to change the “limited right of the party to an unlimited one.”
But the majority of the court concluded that, “the limits on coordinated political party expenditures at issue here are ‘disproportionate'” and “not necessary” to satisfy the government’s interest in preventing “exceeding the basic limits on contributions to candidates through the use of marked contributions to parties.”
President Donald Trump took a victory lap after the ruling, writing on Truth Social, “Supreme Court just struck down limits on political spending! BIG WIN FOR REPUBLICANS and, most importantly, the First Amendment!”
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the majority, said the restrictions placed on party campaign funds under the Federal Election Campaign Act “actually limit the freedom of expression of political parties,” thereby violating the First Amendment.
Kavanaugh emphasized that the decision “treats all political parties equally.”
“It would allow all political parties—including the DNC and RNC and the Senate and House campaign committees, as well as other parties and party committees—to participate freely and fully compete in the political process, and to communicate more closely with candidates,” he wrote.
But Democratic Party committee chairmen criticized the decision as “a victory for billionaire donors and special interests seeking greater influence on the GOP agenda and an invitation to corruption.”
This decision may shake up the existing spending patterns between the two parties, especially regarding broadcast advertisements.
Political candidates benefit from a law that allows them to pay the lowest available rate for TV ads, but political committees do not. Republicans in recent election cycles have relied more on super PAC money than Democrats, which has led to GOP supporters’ ads being sometimes more expensive, the New York Times reported.
By freeing parties to spend unlimited money on their candidates, Tuesday’s decision could allow Republicans to take advantage of lower TV ad ratings, narrowing the margin for Democrats.
But the Elias Law Group, which represented the Democrats in the Supreme Court appeal, opposed that change.
“Republicans will now say that this gives their caucuses access to a much lower level of television advertising, but that is not what the law requires,” said legislative partners Jacquelyn Lopez and Rachel Jacobs in a statement in response to the decision.
“Even the Trump Administration’s Solicitor General told the Supreme Court that broadcasters are required to provide those levels of spending, not group spending, whether combined or independent.”
Our colleagues added, “While we believe this case was wrongly decided, in the long run, Democratic campaigns will benefit from the level playing field this decision provides.”
