Latest news with #NationalRepublicanSenatorialCommittee
The Herald Scotland
2 days ago
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
Supreme Court will hear GOP challenge to campaign spending limit
The justices are likely to hear arguments in the fall and hand down a decision next year. The GOP argues the law and the facts have changed since the Supreme Court last considered the issue. As a result, they said, political parties have been weakened and leading donors have turned to "super PACs" that act as "shadow parties," hurting the political system. Elon Musk contributed $238.5 million to one of the super PACs that helped elect President Donald Trump. The case was initiated by Vice President JD Vance when he was a senator, along with former Rep. Steve Chabot, the National Republican Senatorial Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee. The challenge is part of longstanding debate over how to balance free speech rights with preventing corruption. The Supreme Court previously said restrictions on how much the parties can spend in direct coordination with a candidate are allowed to prevent donors from evading limits on how much they can contribute to candidates. But Republicans argue other Supreme Court decisions since then have narrowed the reasons Congress can restrict campaign spending and have led to virtually unlimited spending by super PACs. In addition, Congress has amended the campaign finance laws to allow more coordinated spending in some areas, such as presidential nominating conventions. The Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the challenge, saying their hands were tied by the high court's 2001 decision. "Even when the Supreme Court embraces a new line of reasoning in a given area and even when that reasoning allegedly undercuts the foundation of a decision," Chief Judge Jeffrey Sutton wrote for the appeals court, "it remains the Court's job, not ours, to overrule it."
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme court to hear case that could further erode campaign spending limits
The US supreme court agreed on Monday to hear a case that could further erode restrictions on money in politics, in a challenge that comes in part from Vice-President JD Vance. The National Republican Senatorial Committee, National Republican Congressional Committee, Vance and Steve Chabot, a former Republican congressman from Ohio, are challenging limits set on how much political parties can spend in coordination with candidates. The case was filed when Vance was a senatorial candidate, in 2022. The court's landmark Citizens United ruling in 2010 threw away limits on outside spending on elections, allowing corporations and unions to inject unlimited money into elections as a matter of free speech. The current challenge from Republicans makes a similar argument, claiming that limits on how much spending can be coordinated with a campaign impede their first amendment rights. It also comes at a time where unfettered outside spending has become a norm in US politics. The case is challenging limits to what is called 'coordinated' spending between a party and the campaign, while independent expenditures, those often made by political action committees, have been unlimited since Citizens United. The limits themselves vary depending on population and which office a candidate is seeking. On the low end, a candidate for the US House of Representatives in a state with multiple representatives would be limited to $63,600, while a Senatecandidate in a state with a large voting age population would be nearly $4m. The US court of appeals for the sixth circuit upheld the limits based on a prior supreme court ruling in 2001 on coordinated spending, but the plaintiffs have argued this 2001 decision is outdated given other more recent campaign finance decisions. The Trump administration filed a brief in the case that aligned with Republicans, and the justice department called on the supreme court to consider the case. Democratic groups have asked to intervene to defend the existing limits. The case will be heard in the court's next term, which starts in October. ScotusBlog, the much-watched website written by lawyers and legal scholars, says the case 'may be the first potential blockbuster of October term 2025'.
The Guardian
2 days ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
Supreme court to hear case that could further erode campaign spending limits
The US supreme court agreed on Monday to hear a case that could further erode restrictions on money in politics, in a challenge that comes in part from Vice-President JD Vance. The National Republican Senatorial Committee, National Republican Congressional Committee, Vance and Steve Chabot, a former Republican congressman from Ohio, are challenging limits set on how much political parties can spend in coordination with candidates. The case was filed when Vance was a senatorial candidate, in 2022. The court's landmark Citizens United ruling in 2010 threw away limits on outside spending on elections, allowing corporations and unions to inject unlimited money into elections as a matter of free speech. The current challenge from Republicans makes a similar argument, claiming that limits on how much spending can be coordinated with a campaign impede their first amendment rights. It also comes at a time where unfettered outside spending has become a norm in US politics. The case is challenging limits to what is called 'coordinated' spending between a party and the campaign, while independent expenditures, those often made by political action committees, have been unlimited since Citizens United. The limits themselves vary depending on population and which office a candidate is seeking. On the low end, a candidate for the US House of Representatives in a state with multiple representatives would be limited to $63,600, while a Senatecandidate in a state with a large voting age population would be nearly $4m. The US court of appeals for the sixth circuit upheld the limits based on a prior supreme court ruling in 2001 on coordinated spending, but the plaintiffs have argued this 2001 decision is outdated given other more recent campaign finance decisions. The Trump administration filed a brief in the case that aligned with Republicans, and the justice department called on the supreme court to consider the case. Democratic groups have asked to intervene to defend the existing limits. The case will be heard in the court's next term, which starts in October. ScotusBlog, the much-watched website written by lawyers and legal scholars, says the case 'may be the first potential blockbuster of October term 2025'.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court to hear Vance, GOP effort to strike down campaign finance provision
The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to take up Vice President Vance and GOP committees' bid to strike down federal limits on political parties' spending made in coordination with campaigns. It sets the stage for a major campaign finance battle during the court's next annual term, which begins in October. Twenty-four years ago, the Supreme Court upheld 'coordinated party expenditure limits,' which were originally passed as part of broader campaign finance reforms in the 1970s. As a senator, Vance in 2022 commenced a new attempt to topple the limits under the First Amendment's free speech protections by suing alongside former Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio), the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) and the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC). In their petition to the high court, the plaintiffs said it is 'past time' to clarify the earlier decision or overrule it outright. 'And it likely marks the last chance this Court will get to tackle the question for quite some time, as neither committees nor candidates will squander their limited resources on another challenge if this petition is denied,' their attorneys at Jones Day wrote. The challenged provision limits how the Republican National Committee, Democratic National Committee (DNC) and committees can spend their funds when they're cooperating with a candidate. The Supreme Court has invalidated limits on committees' spending made independently from campaigns under the First Amendment, but it has declined to do so for coordinated expenses. In 2024, committees could spend between $123,600 and roughly $3.8 million in coordination with Senate candidates and between $61,800 and $123,600 for House candidates, depending on the size of their state. The Trump administration abandoned defending the provision's constitutionality and supported Vance's ask that the Supreme Court to take up the challenge. 'A party performs that function most effectively in cooperation with the candidates themselves. By restricting that cooperation, the party-expenditure limit severely burdens the rights of parties and candidates alike,' Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in court filings, telling the justices they should appoint outside counsel to argue the other side. Days later, the DNC, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee jointly asked to be the ones to defend the spending limits, a move no one opposed. 'The Solicitor General's reversal leaves the 50-year-old limitation on coordinated spending by political parties, and this Court's 24-year-old precedent upholding it, entirely undefended before the Court,' it wrote in court filings. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court takes up an important campaign finance case for next term
The Supreme Court just wrapped another term in which the Republican-appointed majority sided with conservatives in First Amendment appeals. Next term's docket is shaping up to continue that trend. On Monday, the court agreed to hear an appeal from Republicans challenging campaign finance restrictions. The challenge comes from the National Republican Senatorial Committee and others affiliated with the GOP, represented by Noel Francisco, a former U.S. solicitor general during the first Trump administration. The current Trump administration agrees that limiting how much political parties can spend on campaigns in coordination with candidates violates the First Amendment. It likewise urged the justices to take up the issue. That rare agreement between parties would otherwise leave the restrictions undefended. In those situations, the court will sometimes appoint a disinterested lawyer who isn't involved in the case to represent an undefended or abandoned view. But represented by Marc Elias, the Democratic National Committee and related groups asked the justices for permission to intervene, which the court granted in its order taking the case. 'The Solicitor General's reversal leaves the 50-year-old limitation on coordinated spending by political parties, and this Court's 24-year-old precedent upholding it, entirely undefended before the Court,' Elias wrote in his successful intervention motion. The case, called National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, will be argued sometime in the court's next term, which begins in October. It takes four justices to grant review of an appeal. NRSC v. FEC joins cases already on next term's docket brought by conservatives citing the First Amendment, which is generally a winning strategy at the Roberts Court. A couple of weeks ago, the court agreed to review an appeal from the conservative Christian legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, which represents an anti-abortion group that was investigated by state authorities for potentially misleading donors and potential clients about the health services it provides. The group wants to press a First Amendment claim against turning over donor information and sought to pursue its claim in federal court. The high court is also set to hear another ADF free speech case next term, involving the constitutionality of Colorado's ban on so-called conversion therapy to try to change a minor's sexual orientation or gender identity. Both ADF cases, along with the new election-related case, could be among the decisions we're waiting on this time next year, when the justices hand down some of their most contentious and divided rulings at the end of June each term. Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration's legal cases. This article was originally published on
