SCOTUS Questions Limits on Political Party Spending

Conservative Supreme Court justices on Tuesday appeared to back a Republican-led drive that would erase limits on how much political parties can spend in coordination with candidates for Congress and president and overturn a quarter-century-old decision.

• A day after the justices indicated they would reverse a 90-year-old precedent limiting the president's power to fire independent agency heads, the court took up a 2001 decision that upheld a provision of federal election law that is more than 50 years old, the AP reports.
• The lawsuit, which originated in Ohio, includes Vice President JD Vance, who joined the Republican challenge to the limits when he was a senator from Ohio. The arguments touched on whether Vance would run for president in 2028, and whether his plans should figure in the outcome.

• The case is the latest in which the conservative majority could upend 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.
• Two hours of arguments showed entrenched divisions between the liberal and conservative justices over campaign finance restrictions. "Every time we interfere with the congressional design, we make matters worse," said Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a dissenter in Citizens United and the court's other campaign money cases.
• By contrast, Justice Samuel Alito, a member of the Citizens United majority, described the decision as "much maligned, I think unfairly maligned." The effect of the decision was to "level the playing field," Alito said, by expanding the right to spend freely that had previously belonged only to media companies.

• The limits on party spending stem from a desire to prevent large donors from skirting 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. The Republican committees for House and Senate candidates filed the lawsuit in Ohio in 2022, joined by Vance and then-Rep. Steve Chabot.
• The court should cast a skeptical eye on the limits because they are "at war" with recent high court decisions, lawyer Noel Francisco said, representing Republican interests. The Federal Election Commission, which changed its view on the issue after Trump took office, also argued that the limits should be struck down.
• The three liberal justices signaled they would vote to uphold the limits. Alito and Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas voiced skepticism about the limits, though the Washington Post reports that Kavanaugh also expressed concerns about possible quid pro quo corruption if the limits were lifted.