The Supreme Court could eliminate one of the remaining checks on money in politics in a case that worries advocates fighting the influence of deep-pocketed donors.
In a challenge involving Vice President JD Vance, the court will consider on Dec. 9 the Republican Party’s argument for overturning a 2001 decision that upheld a rule aimed at preventing wealthy donors from bypassing limits on what they can give candidates by funneling money through political parties.
Since that 5-4 decision, the court has become more conservative. And campaign finance law has changed, both by Congress and through other Supreme Court rulings striking down various rules as improper restrictions on “political speech” under the First Amendment.
Republicans argue the altered landscape means the court should now scrap the limit on how much political parties can spend in coordination with candidates for federal offices.
“That 5-4 aberration was egregiously wrong the day it was decided, and developments both in the law and on the ground in the 24 years since have only further eroded its foundations,” lawyers for the Republican Party told the court.
Former Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin, who authored other campaign finance rules that have been partially overturned by the Supreme Court, wrote in a brief for the case that getting rid of the coordinated spending limits would be “the next step in the march toward allowing unlimited money to swamp American elections and drown out the will of the voters.”
But the court could also avoid the issue by dismissing the case after hearing it.
After President Donald Trump took office, the Justice Department stopped defending the federal rule.
The lawyer the court then appointed to argue in support of the rule said the justices don’t have to weigh in now because there’s no threat that the federal government will enforce the coordination restriction.
“That result would not fully satisfy everyone, but it offers a middle ground that respects constitutional values and exemplifies judicial restraint,” attorney Roman Martinez wrote, explaining how the justices could avoid “this inherently politicized case.”
If the court doesn’t agree, the justices could take another incremental step towards deregulating the campaign finance area, said Rick Hasen, a professor and election law expert at the UCLA School of Law.
“Or,” he said, “the court might use the case to more broadly call campaign contribution limits into question.”…
