Divided US Supreme Court grapples with campaign spending curbs in JD Vance case
Republican senate candidate JD Vance and Donald Trump Jr. host an event ahead of next month's primary election in Independence, Ohio, U.S., April 20, 2022. REUTERS/Gaelen Morse/File Photo
WASHINGTON, Dec 9 (Reuters) - A divided U.S. Supreme Court wrestled on Tuesday with a Republican-led bid to strike down on free speech grounds federal limits on spending by political parties in coordination with candidates in a case involving Vice President JD Vance.
At least four of the six conservative justices appeared sympathetic toward the challenge during more than two hours of argument in the case, with the court's three liberal members seeming inclined to preserve the spending limits. The dispute centers on whether federal limits on coordinated campaign spending violate the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment protection against government abridgment of freedom of speech.
Republican President Donald Trump's administration argued in support of the challenge, which was brought by plaintiffs including two Republican committees as well as his vice president Vance, who was running for the U.S. Senate in Ohio when the case began, and Republican former congressman Steve Chabot.
The challengers appealed a lower court's ruling that upheld restrictions on the amount of money parties can spend on campaigns with input from candidates they support, a type of political spending called coordinated party expenditures. The case is being argued with the November 2026 midterm elections looming, as Republicans seek to maintain control of both chambers of Congress.
Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh voiced concern that "the combination of campaign finance laws and this court's decisions over the years have together reduced the power of political parties as compared to outside groups, with negative effects on our constitutional democracy."
The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 regulates fundraising and spending in U.S. elections by limiting the amount that can be spent on a candidate. Defenders of this law credit it with guarding against corruption.
Under the law, spending by a political party to advocate for or against a candidate that is not coordinated with a candidate's campaign is considered an "independent expenditure" not subject to amount limits. Contributions coordinated between a party and a campaign, however, are restricted.
Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor lamented the court's prior rulings against campaign finance limits, noting the large sums now collected by presidential candidates for both main parties.
"Once we take off coordinated expenditure limits, then what's left? What's left is nothing. No control whatsoever," Sotomayor said.
Sotomayor appeared to invoke billionaire Tesla CEO Elon Musk, the world's richest person, who spent nearly $300 million to back Trump's presidential campaign and other Republicans last year and quickly emerged as a powerful force in the White House after Trump was elected. Musk led the so-called Department of Government Efficiency before leaving the administration in May.
"You mean to suggest that the fact that one major donor to the current president - the most major donor to the current president - got a very lucrative job immediately upon election from the new administration does not give the appearance of quid pro quo?" Sotomayor asked Noel Francisco, a lawyer for the Republican challengers.