Supreme Court strikes down long-standing campaign finance restrictions

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down longtime campaign finance rules challenged by Vice President JD Vance that place limits on how much a national political party committee can spend in coordination with individual candidates. In a 6-3 ruling authored by conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the court found that the restrictions violate free speech rights under the Constitution's First Amendment, based on the theory that political spending is a form of speech. The challenge was brought by the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the National Republican Congressional Committee and the campaigns of two candidates in the 2022 elections: Vance, who was then running as a Republican candidate for the Senate in Ohio, and then-Rep. Steve Chabot, a Republican congressman from the same state who lost his re-election bid. The Federal Election Commission, under the Trump administration, sided with the challengers. The Supreme Court’s conservative majority has historically been skeptical of campaign finance restrictions on free speech grounds, and Republicans have often brought challenges against them. A string of Supreme Court rulings has stripped back campaign finance restrictions over the years, including the 2010 Citizens United v. FEC decision, which paved the way for unlimited independent expenditures by outside groups known as super PACs. Under the law struck down, parties could make unlimited independent expenditures in support of a candidate — which must be done separately from the candidate's campaign — but cannot exceed limits on coordinated spending done in conjunction with a campaign. That can include such spending as hiring a venue or fundraising consultants or paying for a candidate’s travel, the Republicans said in court papers. The current limit varies based on the population of voting age in specific House or Senate elections; it can be as much as almost $4 million for Senate races and $127,000 for at-large House seats. With the flood of spending that resulted from the Citizens United ruling, the existing caps have had an increasingly marginal effect on addressing the original intention of keeping money out of politics to avoid corruption or the appearance of it.