Political Speech: Why the Supreme Court Might Just Do the Right Thing

The Supreme Court is looking at a case that could change how political parties and candidates work together. Right now, there are rules that stop parties from coordinating with their candidates. But these rules might not make sense. For a long time, people have tried to control political speech. They started with "hard money" given to candidates. Then they moved to "soft money" for parties. Next, they targeted "express advocacy" by independent groups. Finally, they tried to limit spending on issue advocacy. This is like peeling an artichoke leaf by leaf. The Supreme Court has slowly started to undo these rules. In 1976, they said spending limits were not okay because money is important for political communication. But they were slow to protect contributions as a form of political participation. The big question now is about "coordinated" party expenditures. These are spending done in sync with candidates' campaigns. The court sees these as similar to contributions, which can be limited. But contributions can't buy specific official acts, and donors can't earmark contributions for particular candidates. Social science shows that most legislative behavior is based on ideology, party affiliation, or constituents' desires. So, proving corruption is hard. Contributions usually go to candidates with specific positions, not the other way around. Limits on coordination make parties less effective. This leads to more money flowing to super PACs. Parties have never been weaker. In the 2020 election cycle, parties raised only $2. 5 billion out of $15. 1 billion spent on federal races. Parties build broad coalitions. Their weakness and the rise of super PACs have made political polarization worse. But the push for "reform" has slowed down. In 2014, Democratic senators voted to amend the First Amendment to limit political speech. This shows the danger of letting the political class decide what's "reasonable. " All campaign laws are written by incumbent legislators. These laws always help incumbents, who have a high chance of winning reelection. Sen. Mitch McConnell has opposed limits on party-candidate coordination. He has been a strong voice for free political expression. The Supreme Court will likely dismantle the rules that prevent coordination between parties and candidates. As McConnell leaves the Senate, he leaves a better political and constitutional landscape.