The Supreme Court gave approval Tuesday for political parties to coordinate their spending with their candidates, saying a long-standing bar on coordination violates core First Amendment speech rights.
The 6-3 decision doesn’t necessarily change how much money will be raised and spent, but it does change how the major party operations such as the Democratic National Committee or the National Republican Congressional Committee can spend it.
In particular, it means the parties can try to wield more influence over candidates.
Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, a Trump appointee who wrote the key opinion, reaffirmed the notion that campaign spending is a type of speech protected by the First Amendment.
The decision erases a 2001 precedent that had upheld limits on coordinated spending. Justice Kavanaugh said that the previous ruling, known as the Colorado II case, has aged poorly and can no longer survive constitutional scrutiny.
“In short, constitutional text, history, and precedent establish that the political-party coordinated-expenditure limits violate the First Amendment,” he wrote.
The case is the latest in a string of rulings from the Roberts Court that have allowed expansive freedom in political campaign spending, erasing both Supreme Court precedents and much of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, commonly known as McCain-Feingold after its two most prominent sponsors.
Justice Kavanaugh said Tuesday’s decision creates a “level playing field” for all political parties, and there’s no reason why one party would benefit more than another.
Still, it was Republican committees who pushed for the decision, and Democratic committees that had urged the high court to stick with its 2001 precedent.
Justice Elena Kagan led the dissent for the court’s three Democratic appointees, saying the danger of corruption from coordinated spending was too real to ignore.
Because donors can give more to political parties than to individual candidates, she said there’s an incentive to funnel money through the parties, though earmarked for the candidates.
She said Congress had that corruption in mind when it imposed limits on coordination, and she said the Constitution should allow lawmakers to rein it in.
“The First Amendment permits campaign finance restrictions that are narrowly tailored to protect against quid pro quo corruption and its appearance. Caps on a party’s coordinated expenditures pass that test with flying colors,” she wrote.
Vice President J.D. Vance helped bring the lawsuit when he was serving in the Senate.
Contact the author
Please read our comment policy before commenting.