WASHINGTON — Supreme Court conservatives signaled Tuesday they are likely to rule in favor of Republicans and President Trump by striking down Watergate-era restrictions on political party campaign financing.
The court has repeatedly said that campaign money is protected as free speech, and the new ruling could allow parties to support their candidates' campaigns with the help of wealthy donors.
For the second day in a row, Trump administration lawyers urge judges repeal the law adopted by Congress. And they seemed to have the support of most conservatives.
The only doubt was whether the case was flawed, since no current candidate challenged the restrictions.
“The parties are greatly weakened,” Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh said. “This court's decisions over the years have cumulatively reduced the power of political parties relative to outside groups, with negative consequences for our constitutional democracy.”
He was referring to regulations that supported unlimited campaign spending by wealthy donors and so-called super PACs.
IN Citizens United In the 2010 case, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and four other conservatives struck down longstanding limits on campaign spending, including by corporations and labor unions. They did so on the theory that such spending is “independent” of candidates and is protected as free speech under the First Amendment.
Contribution limits for candidates were not affected, they said. These restrictions may be justified by the danger of corruption when money buys political favors. This ushered in a new era of ever-greater political spending, but much of it was kept separate from candidates and parties.
Last year, billionaire Elon Musk spent more than $250 million to support Donald Trump's re-election campaign. He did this with money spent through political action committees rather than directly to Trump or his campaign.
Meanwhile, campaign finance laws limit candidate contributions to $3,500.
Lawyers for the National Republican Senatorial Committee have noted the trend and told the Supreme Court that its decisions “undermine” the basis for some campaign finance restrictions that remain from the 1970s.
Limits on “coordinated party spending” were the topic of discussion Tuesday. After the Watergate scandal, Congress placed limits on the campaign money that could be given to parties and used to finance their candidates. The current donation limit is $44,000, lawyers said.
Washington lawyer Noel Francisco, Trump's attorney general during his first term, urged the court to strike down those restrictions on the grounds that they are outdated and violate free speech.
“The theory is that they are needed to prevent an individual donor from laundering a $44,000 donation through a party to a specific candidate in exchange for official action,” he said.
If a major donor is hoping to curry favor with a congressional candidate, “a potential briber would be better off simply making a large donation to the candidate's favorite super PAC,” Francisco said.
The lawsuit announced Tuesday was filed by then-Sen. J.D. Vance of Ohio and other Republican candidates, and he continued in his role as vice president and possible presidential candidate in 2028.
The Justice Department typically defends federal laws, but in this case the Trump administration switched sides and joined Republicans in calling for an end to party spending limits.
Precedents could prevent this.
In 2001, the Supreme Court narrowly upheld these restrictions on the grounds that direct party support was a kind of contribution rather than an independent expense. But Deputy Attorney General Sarah Harris told the justices on Tuesday that the court's recent decisions have “destroyed” that precedent.
“Parties cannot corrupt candidates, and there is no evidence that donors are laundering bribes by co-opting parties' coordinated spending with candidates,” she said.
Marc Elias, a Democratic lawyer, joined the case in support of judicial restrictions. He said the result would have little to do with speeches or campaign messages.
“I think we're underestimating the actual corruption” that could arise, he said. If a person donates $1 million to a political party while that person has business matters pending before the House or Senate, it's likely it could affect a “tying or deciding vote,” he said.
The only apparent difficulty for the conservative justices arose in matters of procedure.
Washington lawyer Roman Martinez was asked to defend the law and argued that neither Vance nor other Republicans had the legal right to challenge the restrictions. Vance was not a sitting candidate and said the case should be dismissed for that reason.
Some legal observers have noted that the restrictions on parties came in response to evidence that huge donations to President Nixon's re-election campaign came from industry donors seeking government favors.
“Coordinated spending limits are one of the few remaining means of curbing the influence of wealthy special interest groups in our elections,” said Omar Nureldin, senior vice president of litigation at Common Cause. “If the Supreme Court strikes them down, party leaders and wealthy donors will be free to pour nearly unlimited money directly into federal campaigns—the very thing these rules were created to stop.”
Daniel I. Weiner, an election law expert at the Brennan Center, said the justices are well aware of how lifting those restrictions could set the stage for further problems.
“I was amazed at how both sides had to recognize that this case should not be seen in isolation, but as part of a decades-long effort to overturn campaign finance rules,” he said. “These other decisions had many consequences that the court itself failed to foresee.”
