Supreme Court takes up a Republican appeal to end limits on party spending in federal elections
The justices said Monday they will review an appellate ruling that upheld a provision of federal election law that is more than 50 years old, ignoring pleas from Democrats to leave the law in place. The Supreme Court itself upheld it in 2001.
But since Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court in 2005, a conservative majority has upended a variety of congressionally enacted limits on raising and spending money to influence elections. The court's 2010 Citizens United decision opened the door to unlimited independent spending in federal elections.
Without the limits on party spending, large donors would be able to skirt caps on individual contributions to a candidate by directing unlimited sums to the party with the understanding that the money will be spent on behalf of the candidate, supporters of the law say.
The case will be argued in the fall.
Richard Hasen. an election law expert at the University of California at Los Angeles law school, has predicted the court will strike down the limits. 'That may even make sense now in light of the prevalence of super PAC spending that has undermined political parties and done nothing to limit (and in fact increased) corruption and inequality,' Hasen wrote on the Election Law blog.
The Justice Department almost always defends federal laws when they are challenged in court. But the Trump administration notified the court that 'this is the rare case that warrants an exception to that general approach' because it believes the law violates free-speech protections in the First Amendment.
The Republican committees for House and Senate candidates filed the lawsuit in Ohio in 2022, joined by two Ohio Republicans in Congress, then-Sen. J.D. Vance, who's now vice president, and then-Rep. Steve Chabot.
In 2025, the coordinated party spending for Senate races ranges from $127,200 in several states with small populations to nearly $4 million in California. For House races, the limits are $127,200 in states with only one representative and $63,600 everywhere else.
Mark Sherman, The Associated Press
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Globe and Mail
16 minutes ago
- Globe and Mail
Hamas seeks ceasefire guarantees as Israeli strikes kill dozens more people
Hamas is seeking guarantees that a new U.S.-backed ceasefire proposal for Gaza would lead to the war's end, a source close to the militant group said on Thursday, as medics said Israeli strikes across the territory had killed scores more people. Israeli officials said prospects for reaching a ceasefire and hostage deal appeared high, nearly 21 months since the war between Israel and Hamas began. Efforts for a Gaza truce gathered steam after the U.S. secured a ceasefire to end a 12-day aerial conflict between Israel and Iran, but on the ground in Gaza intensified Israeli strikes continued unabated, killing at least 59 people on Thursday, according to health authorities in the territory. Hundreds of Palestinian families flee West Bank camp ahead of Israeli demolition orders On Tuesday, U.S. President Donald Trump said Israel had accepted the conditions needed to finalize a 60-day ceasefire with Hamas, during which the parties will work to end the war. Hamas is seeking clear guarantees that the ceasefire will eventually lead to the war's end, the source close to the group said. Two Israeli officials said those details were still being worked out. In a statement early on Friday, Hamas said it was discussing the ceasefire proposal with other Palestinian factions and would submit its response to mediators once those talks conclude. Egyptian and Qatari mediators have been working to secure U.S. and international guarantees that talks on ending the war would continue as a way of convincing Hamas to accept a two-month truce proposal, Egyptian security sources said. A senior Israeli official close to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said preparations were in place to approve a ceasefire deal. A separate source familiar with the matter said that Israel was expecting Hamas' response by Friday and that if it was positive, an Israeli delegation would join indirect talks to cement the deal. The proposal includes the staggered release of 10 living Israeli hostages and the return of the bodies of 18 more in exchange for Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails, an official familiar with the negotiations said on Thursday. Of the 50 remaining hostages in Gaza, 20 are believed to still be alive. Aid would enter Gaza immediately, and the Israeli military would carry out a phased withdrawal from parts of the enclave, according to the proposal. Negotiations would immediately start on a permanent ceasefire. 'We sure hope it's a done deal, but I think it's all going to be what Hamas is willing to accept,' U.S. ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee told Israel's Channel 12 on Thursday. 'One thing is clear: The President wants it to be over. The Prime Minister wants it to be over. The American people, the Israeli people, want it to be over.' Huckabee added that he would be taking part in talks next week at the White House, when Netanyahu is due to meet with Trump. In Gaza, there was no sign of immediate relief on Thursday. According to medics at Nasser Hospital, at least 20 people were killed by Israeli fire en route to an aid distribution site. Further north, at least 17 people were killed in an Israeli strike at a school in Gaza City, according to medics. The Israeli military said it targeted a key Hamas gunman operating there and that it took precautions to reduce risk to civilians. 'Suddenly, we found the tent collapsing over us and a fire burning. We don't know what happened,' one witness, Wafaa Al-Arqan, who was among the people sheltering there, told Reuters. 'What can we do? Is it fair that all these children burned?' The war began when Hamas fighters stormed into Israel on October 7, 2023, killing 1,200 people and taking 251 hostages back to Gaza, according to Israeli tallies. Israel's subsequent military assault has killed more than 57,000 Palestinians, according to the Gaza health ministry, while displacing most of the population of more than 2 million, triggering widespread hunger and leaving much of the territory in ruins. Israel says it won't end the war while Hamas is still armed and ruling Gaza. Hamas, severely weakened, says it won't lay down its weapons but is willing to release all the hostages still in Gaza if Israel ends the war.
Globe and Mail
an hour ago
- Globe and Mail
U.S. Supreme Court sides with Trump over deportation of migrants to South Sudan
The U.S. Supreme Court again sided with President Donald Trump's administration in a legal fight over deporting migrants to countries other than their own, lifting on Thursday limits a judge had imposed to protect eight men who the government sought to send to politically unstable South Sudan. The court on June 23 put on hold Boston-based U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy's April 18 injunction requiring migrants set for removal to so-called 'third countries' where they have no ties to get a chance to tell officials they are at risk of torture there, while a legal challenge plays out. The court on Thursday granted a Justice Department request to clarify that its June 23 decision also extended to Murphy's separate May 21 ruling that the administration had violated his injunction in attempting to send a group of migrants to South Sudan. The U.S. State Department has urged Americans to avoid the African nation 'due to crime, kidnapping and armed conflict.' The court said that Murphy should now 'cease enforcing the April 18 injunction through the May 21 remedial order.' 'The Supreme Court's ruling rewards the government for violating the injunction and delaying implementation of the remedy the district court ordered,' said Trina Realmuto, executive director of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, which helps represent the plaintiffs. 'Eight men are now at imminent risk of deportation to perilous and unsafe conditions in South Sudan,' Realmuto said. Sudanese refugees brace for a new threat to life and limb Two liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented from the decision, criticizing the court's actions. 'Today's order clarifies only one thing: Other litigants must follow the rules, but the administration has the Supreme Court on speed dial,' Sotomayor wrote in a dissenting opinion. Fellow liberal Justice Elena Kagan, who dissented from the court's decision to lift Murphy's injunction, nevertheless agreed with the majority on Thursday. 'I do not see how a district court can compel compliance with an order that this court has stayed,' Kagan wrote in a brief opinion. Murphy's May 21 order mandating further procedures for the South Sudan-destined migrants prompted the U.S. government to keep the migrants at a military base in Djibouti. Murphy also clarified at the time that non-U.S. citizens must be given at least 10 days to raise a claim that they fear for their safety. After the Supreme Court lifted Murphy's April injunction on June 23, the judge promptly ruled that his May 21 order 'remains in full force and effect.' Calling that ruling by the judge a 'lawless act of defiance,' the Justice Department the next day urged the Supreme Court to clarify that its action applied to Murphy's May 21 decision as well. Murphy's ruling, the Justice Department said in court filings, has stalled its 'lawful attempts to finalize the long-delayed removal of those aliens to South Sudan,' and disrupted diplomatic relations. Even as it accused the judge of defying the Supreme Court, the administration itself has been accused of violating judicial orders including in the third-country deportation litigation. The administration has said its third-country policy is critical for removing migrants who commit crimes because their countries of origin are often unwilling to take them back. The Supreme Court has a 6-3 conservative majority. Sotomayor in a dissent called the court's June 23 decision pausing Murphy's injunction a 'gross abuse' of its power that now exposes 'thousands to the risk of torture or death.' After the Department of Homeland Security moved in February to step up rapid deportations to third countries, immigrant rights groups filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of a group of migrants seeking to prevent their removal to such places without notice and a chance to assert the harms they could face. In March, the administration issued guidance providing that if a third country has given credible diplomatic assurance that it will not persecute or torture migrants, individuals may be deported there 'without the need for further procedures.' Murphy found that the administration's policy of 'executing third-country removals without providing notice and a meaningful opportunity to present fear-based claims' likely violates due process requirements under the U.S. Constitution. Due process generally requires the government to provide notice and an opportunity for a hearing before taking certain adverse actions. The Justice Department noted in a filing that the administration has received credible diplomatic assurances from South Sudan that the aliens at issue will not be subject to torture.' The Supreme Court has let Trump implement some contentious immigration policies while the fight over their legality continues to play out. In two decisions in May, it let Trump end humanitarian programs for hundreds of thousands of migrants to live and work in the United States temporarily. The justices, however, faulted the administration's treatment of some migrants as inadequate under constitutional due process protections.
Toronto Star
an hour ago
- Toronto Star
Trump says US has given Ukraine too many weapons in first public comments on pause in shipments
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump complained Thursday that the United States provided too many weapons to Ukraine under the previous administration, his first public comments on the pause in some shipments as Russia escalates its latest offensive. Speaking to reporters before boarding Air Force One for a flight to Iowa, Trump said former President Joe Biden 'emptied out our whole country giving them weapons, and we have to make sure that we have enough for ourselves.'
