Supreme Court to hear case that could upend campaign finance coordination rules
A ruling in favor of the Republican plaintiffs would deliver the GOP's biggest campaign-finance win since the landmark 2010 Citizens United case, fundamentally changing how party committees spend tens of millions of dollars every election cycle, particularly on TV advertising. A GOP victory could allow party groups to pour unlimited amounts into ads in competitive races across the country, making it easier for campaigns to benefit from that spending.
Republicans' top congressional campaign committees — the National Republican Senatorial Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee — brought the case with then-Sen. JD Vance in 2023, arguing that federal law limiting coordination between candidates and political parties violates the First Amendment.
The Supreme Court's decision to take up the case after the conservative 6th Circuit upheld the spending limits suggests the court is considering reversing decades-old precedent. And it comes after the Justice Department took the unusual step last month of choosing not to defend the constitutionality of the law and encouraging the high court to rule.
'In the Department's view, the challenged provision violates political parties' and candidates' core First Amendment rights under the Court's recent precedents on campaign-finance restrictions,' Solicitor General D. John Sauer said in a June letter to House Speaker Mike Johnson.
Party committees can currently coordinate with candidates for between $63,600 and $127,200 in spending for House races, and $127,200 to $3,946,100 for Senate races, depending on the size of the district or state.
Those funds often go to purchasing television ads, which are cheaper when bought in concert with a campaign than entirely by outside groups. If the limits on coordinated spending are overturned, party groups would dramatically accelerate their purchase of ad time.
Democrats oppose the effort to overturn the limits, warning that doing so would cede political power to large donors. That would advantage Republicans, who generally rely less on small-donor fundraising. While individual donors can only give up to $3,500 to a campaign per election, they can send donations up to $44,300 per year to national party committees.
The NRSC and NRCC hailed the court's decision to hear the case during its next term this fall.
'The government should not restrict a party committee's support for its own candidates,' Sen. Tim Scott and Rep. Richard Hudson — the chairs of the committees — said in a joint statement. 'Coordinated spending continues to be a critical part of winning campaigns, and the NRSC and NRCC will ensure we are in the strongest possible position to win in 2026 and beyond.'
The court on Monday also allowed the Democratic National Committee, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee to join the case in opposition to the GOP. Those groups sought to intervene after the Justice Department declined to defend the law, and the Justice Department and the Republican plaintiffs told the court they did not mind the intervention.
A victory for Republicans in this case is far from guaranteed, and some legal experts have already argued there's plenty of precedent to counter the core argument.
They point to a 2001 Supreme Court ruling in which the court found 'little evidence to suggest that coordinated party spending limits adopted by Congress have frustrated the ability of political parties to exercise their First Amendment rights to support their candidates.'
But the ideological makeup of the court was much different that year, and in that ruling, Justice Clarence Thomas — the only justice still serving from that time — dissented.
'This provision sweeps too broadly, interferes with the party-candidate relationship, and has not been proved necessary to combat corruption,' Thomas wrote at the time.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Wall Street Journal
33 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
The GOP Gambles on ‘Trump Accounts'
Some of the most expensive parts of the federal budget and tax code started small but eventually grew into monsters. The likeliest candidates for that result in the GOP's tax and budget bill are the new Money Accounts for Growth and Advancement, aka MAGA or Trump accounts. This is one more government tax-preferred investment account like IRAs or 529 plans, albeit with some different rules. Unlike those accounts, the government will make a one-time $1,000 payment to be invested in a stock-market index fund for babies born between 2025 and 2028. Parents could add up to $5,000 a year to the accounts, though without a tax write-off. The funds will grow tax deferred, but no withdrawals are allowed until the child turns 18.
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Calls are mounting to ban Germany's far-right AfD party – despite it being more popular than ever
The far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) is now Germany's largest opposition group and even topped several opinion polls – briefly putting it ahead of now-Chancellor Friedrich Merz's center-right party – in the weeks after February's federal election. At the same time, the AfD is facing growing calls for an outright ban, most recently from another major political party. In May, the country's domestic intelligence agency formally classified the AfD as an extremist entity that threatens democracy. In a 1,100-page report, the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, or BfV, also laid out its findings that the party was racist, anti-Muslim, and devaluing of 'entire segments' of Germany's population. That move, which enables the BfV to better monitor the group , has reignited attempts to impose a ban, despite the party claiming a significant 20.8% of the vote in February's national election – the best performance by a far-right party in the country since World War II. The AfD has also enjoyed very vocal support from the Trump administration, with Tesla billionaire Elon Musk – who has since left his position in the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) – urging Germans to vote for the party in the run-up to the election. More recently, both US Vice President, JD Vance, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have criticized Germany's decision to classify the AfD as extremist. On Monday, the center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD), which is currently serving as the junior coalition partner in Berlin's conservative-led government, voted unanimously to begin efforts to outlaw it. Yet the legal path to banning the AfD is lengthy – and largely unprecedented. Set up to avoid a repeat of Nazi rule, Germany's political system operates on the basis of streitbare Demokratie, or 'militant democracy,' meaning it is a democracy 'determined and able to defend itself.' In other words, the German state can actively defend itself against internal threats to its democratic principles and constitutional order, including through the banning of political parties. However, two criteria must be met by Germany's Federal Constitutional Court to form a legal basis for a ban. Firstly, the party in question must be found to work against the country's free democratic order, demonstrating an 'actively belligerent, aggressive stance.' Secondly, the party must be popular enough to pose a tangible threat to democracy, a provision created in 2017 and called 'potentiality.' Parties found to meet the first criterion, but not the second, can be prohibited from accessing public campaign financing, but are allowed to continue with other activities. 'It is a widespread misconception in Germany that the AfD cannot be banned because… it is too large,' Till Holterhus, professor of Constitutional Law at the Leuphana University of Lüneberg, told CNN. 'The opposite is true: its size demonstrates that it fulfills the criterion of 'potentiality.'' To begin the process of banning a party, a formal request must be made to the federal court. This request can only be made by either the government itself, the Bundestag, Germany's lower house of parliament, or the Bundesrat, the legislative body that represents the country's 16 regional states. The court then decides whether to begin proceedings or throw out the application as unsubstantiated. It must hold a full trial, examining thousands of pages of evidence and hearing witnesses, and considers whether the party violates the constitution in practice, Holterhus explained. The court can then declare a party unconstitutional. The party would then be dissolved and banned from all political activity. It would also be prohibited from creating any substitute organizations. At least two-thirds of the court's justices must be in agreement in order to make the declaration. In practical terms, if the AfD were to be banned, its sitting lawmakers would receive an automatic loss of mandate at the regional and federal level as well as in the European parliament. Of the 152 seats the AfD currently has in the Bundestag , 42 are direct seats, where the respective candidates individually won the districts by majority. These 42 districts would need to vote again to fill the seats with new candidates from other parties. The other 110 AfD seats, which are allocated using a party list system, would remain vacant until the next election cycle. Similarly, the AfD's seats in the European Parliament would remain vacant. In either case, this would result in a shifting of the majority ratio, meaning that the seats of all other parties would gain a higher significance. The German Federal Constitutional Court has only banned two parties in the country's history – and both were in the early postwar years. The Socialist Reich Party (SRP), a successor to the Nazi Party, was outlawed in 1952. Four years later, in 1956, the far-left Communist Party of Germany (KPD) was also banned. Repeated attempts – in 2003, 2016 and 2021 – to ban the neo-Nazi National Democratic Party of Germany (NPD) have failed. Although the court in 2017 openly acknowledged the party was unconstitutional, it found that it didn't pose a significant threat to the constitutional order. In January 2024, the court approved the freezing of the NPD's state funding for six years. Overall, Holterhus believes that it is difficult to impose a ban on a political party in Germany. 'A party ban is considered a measure of last resort against the enemies of a democracy,' he said. The rise of the AfD has triggered widespread unease, with protesters calling for it to be outlawed – most notably in early 2024, when tens of thousands of demonstrators descended on cities across Germany after it emerged that senior AfD party members had discussed a plan to deport migrants en masse. Yet German lawmakers remain divided over the issue, with some fearing the move could backfire and fuel far-right sympathies. Pointing to its classification as a right-wing extremist organisation, SPD co-leader Lars Klingbeil told party members at a conference Monday that efforts to ban the AfD should begin. 'The moment the domestic intelligence agency says this is a confirmed right-wing extremist party, there can be no more tactics,' he said. Yet Merz's Christian Democratic Union (CDU) – which leads Germany's coalition government – is hesitant. German Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt, a member of the Christian Social Union (CSU) – the CDU's Bavarian sister party – poured cold water on the SPD's motion. Speaking to German news podcast 'Table. Today,' he said that 'decisions made at the SPD party conference are not yet a mandate for the interior minister.' Merz has himself expressed caution over the move, telling newspaper Die Zeit in May that he is 'skeptical' of procedures to ban political parties. The AfD's unparalleled public approval, not to mention support from the Trump administration, a powerful transatlantic ally, means its prohibition could have significant reverberations. Some opinion polls found that, in the weeks after the Germany's election , support for the AfD had crept up even higher than its 20.8% official result, briefly making it the most popular party in the country. National polling agency Forsa in April found that the AfD was polling at a record 26% – putting it two percentage points higher than the CDU, on 24%. Currently, Forsa shows the AfD at 24% – four points behind the CDU. With the AfD's support reaching such heights, Holterhus sees a risk of creating a 'martyr effect' in the case of a ban, with the AfD 'staging itself as a victim of political opponents.' This, he said, could result in further radicalization of some of its supporters and even politically motivated violence. Lengthy legal proceedings, he said, could further heighten the AfD's platform while the move also risks the 'wrath' of the Trump administration and could play into the populist narrative of an 'undemocratic Europe.'
Los Angeles Times
an hour ago
- Los Angeles Times
Pressure from Trump for trade deals before Wednesday deadline, but hints of more time for talks
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is stepping up pressure on trading partners to quickly make new deals before a Wednesday deadline, with plans for the United States to start sending letters Monday warning countries that higher tariffs could kick in Aug. 1. That furthers the uncertainty for businesses, consumers and America's trading partners, and questions remain about which countries will be notified, whether anything will change in the days ahead and whether President Donald Trump will once more push off imposing the rates. Trump and his top trade advisers say he could extend the time for dealmaking but they insist the administration is applying maximum pressure on other nations. Kevin Hassett, director of the White House National Economic Council, told CBS' 'Face the Nation' on Sunday that Trump would decide when it was time to give up on negotiations. 'The United States is always willing to talk to everybody about everything,' Hassett said. 'There are deadlines, and there are things that are close, so maybe things will push back past the deadline or maybe they won't. In the end the president is going to make that judgment.' Stephen Miran, the chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, likewise said countries negotiating in good faith and making concessions could 'sort of, get the date rolled.' The steeper tariffs that President Donald Trump announced April 2 threatened to overhaul the global economy and lead to broader trade wars. A week later, after the financial markets had panicked, his administration suspended for 90 days most of the higher taxes on imports just as they were to take effect. The negotiating window until July 9 has led to announced deals only with the United Kingdom and Vietnam. Trump imposed elevated tariff rates on dozens of nations that run meaningful trade surpluses with the U.S., and a 10% baseline tax on imports from all countries in response to what he called an economic emergency. There are separate 50% tariffs on steel and aluminum and a 25% tariff on autos. Since April, few foreign governments have set new trade terms with Washington as the Republican president demanded. Trump told reporters early Friday that his administration might be sending out letters as early as Saturday to countries spelling out their tariff rates if they did not reach a deal, but that the U.S. would not start collecting those taxes until Aug. 1. On Friday night, he said he would 'probably send out 10 or 12' letters on Monday, each reflecting 'different amounts of money, different amounts of tariffs and somewhat different statements.' He and his advisers have declined to say which countries would receive the letters. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent rejected the idea that Aug. 1 was a new deadline and declined to say what might happen Wednesday. 'We'll see,' Bessent said on CNN's State of the Union. 'I'm not going to give away the playbook.' He said the U.S. was 'close to several deals,' and predicted several big announcements over the next few days. He gave no details. 'I think we're going to see a lot of deals very quickly,' Bessent said. Trump has announced a deal with Vietnam that would allow U.S. goods to enter the country duty-free, while Vietnamese exports to the U.S. would face a 20% levy. That was a decline from the 46% tax on Vietnamese imports he proposed in April — one of his so-called reciprocal tariffs targeting dozens of countries with which the U.S. runs a trade deficit. Asked if he expected to reach deals with the European Union or India, Trump said Friday that 'letters are better for us' because there are so many countries involved. 'We have India coming up and with Vietnam, we did it, but much easier to send a letter saying, 'Listen, we know we have a certain deficit, or in some cases a surplus, but not too many. And this is what you're going to have to pay if you want to do business in the United States.' Canada, however, will not be one of the countries receiving letters, Trump's ambassador, Pete Hoekstra, said Friday after trade talks between the two countries recently resumed. 'Canada is one of our biggest trading partners,' Hoekstra told CTV News in an interview in Ottawa. 'We're going to have a deal that's articulated.' Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has said he wants a new deal in place by July 21 or Canada will increase trade countermeasures. Hoekstra would not commit to a date for a trade agreement and said even with a deal, Canada could still face some tariffs. But 'we're not going to send Canada just a letter,' he said. Knickmeyer and Price write for the Associated Press. Price reported from Bridgewater, New Jersey. AP Business Writer Matt O'Brien in Providence, Rhode Island, contributed to this report.
