Supreme Court takes up major new challenge to campaign finance restrictions

Washington – The Supreme Court noted on a new challenge to the campaign financing restrictions on Monday in a case brought by the Republicans seeking to cancel the limits of the party committees spending money in coordination with individual candidates.

This is the last of a long -standing case sequence which eroded campaign funding restrictions since the congress sought to limit them strictly in the 1970s.

The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has long been skeptical about restrictions on financing campaign on reasons of freedom of expression, its most notable decision being the Citizens decision United v. FEC which paved the way for independent expenditure unlimited by external groups.

However, in a 2001 decision, the court confirmed the restrictions in question in the new case, which means that the judges should cancel this decision for the Republicans to win. The court will hear the arguments oral and will make a decision to its next mandate, which will start in October.

The challenge was raised by the senatorial national republican committee, the National Committee of the Republican Congress and the campaigns of two candidates in the 2022 elections: the president now Vice JD Vance, who presented himself as a republican candidate in the Senate in Ohio, and former representative Steve Chabot, a republican congress of the same state which lost its re -election.

The Federal Electoral Commission, under the direction of the Trump administration, took on the side of the challengers, saying that it accepts that the restrictions violate the first amendment of the Constitution.

The restrictions, imposed for the first time via the federal law on the electoral campaign in 1971, will now be defended by the National Democratic Committee and the associated committees, which has filed a request for intervention in the case.

The case does not imply other campaign restrictions, such as limits to the quantity of people who can donate to a candidate or a party.

Under the current law, amended over the years by the Supreme Court and the Congress, the parties can make independent unlimited expenses in support of a candidate but cannot exceed the limits of coordinated expenses.

This may include expenses such as hiring a collection of fundraising, or paying the trips of a candidate, said Republicans in court documents.

The current limit varies depending on the voting population in a specific chamber of representatives or elections in the Senate, but it can reach nearly $ 4 million for races in the Senate and $ 127,000 for seats in the House.

With the flow of expenses resulting from Citizens United’s decision, giving birth to the creation of independent “super heat pumps” to channel unlimited money in the elections, the existing ceilings have had more and more effect in the fight against the initial intention to keep money out of politics to avoid corruption or appearance.

“The court reasoning confirming these party expenditure limits has been compromised by more recent judicial campaign financing affairs,” said Rick Hasen, an election expert at the UCLA School of Law.

“The status quo-where external groups like Super CAPs can raise unlimited sums, but political parties face much more serious limitations-can create worst conditions in terms of non-responsible groups and increase in negative advertisements,” he added.