Campaign Finance Rules Face Supreme Court Scrutiny

The Supreme Court is reviewing a case that could reshape campaign finance rules. Republicans are pushing to remove limits on how much party committees can spend in coordination with candidates. This isn't new; the Court has been chipping away at campaign finance restrictions for years, especially since the 1970s. The Court, with a 6-3 conservative majority, has often ruled against these restrictions, arguing they limit free speech. A big case in 2010, Citizens United, allowed unlimited spending by outside groups. Now, the Court is looking at whether to overturn a 2001 decision that upheld the current limits. The case was brought by Republican groups and two candidates from Ohio: JD Vance, now Vice President, and former Rep. Steve Chabot. The Federal Election Commission, under Trump's administration, supports their challenge, saying the limits violate the First Amendment. The rules in question, set in 1971, limit how much parties can spend in coordination with candidates. Parties can spend unlimited money independently but face caps on coordinated spending. These limits vary by election but can be as high as nearly $4 million for Senate races. Critics argue that these limits are outdated. With the rise of super PACs, which can raise unlimited funds, the current rules may not be effective. Rick Hasen, a law professor at UCLA, points out that the Court's reasoning for these limits has been weakened by later rulings. He suggests that the current system might actually empower unaccountable groups and increase negative campaigning. The Democratic National Committee is defending the limits, intervening in the case. The outcome could significantly alter how money flows in elections, potentially giving parties more freedom to spend in coordination with candidates.