Supreme Court takes up major new challenge to campaign finance restrictions

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: NBC News

June 30, 2025, 9:33 AM EDT


WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday took up a new challenge to campaign finance restrictions in a case brought by Republicans seeking to overturn limits on party committees spending money in coordination with individual candidates.

It is the latest in a long-running sequence of cases that have eroded campaign finance restrictions since Congress sought to strictly limit them in the 1970s.

The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has long been skeptical of campaign finance restrictions on free speech grounds, with its most notable ruling being the 2010 Citizens United v. FEC decision that paved the way for unlimited independent expenditures by outside groups.

However, in a 2001 ruling, the court upheld the restrictions at issue in the new case, meaning the justices would have to overturn that decision for the Republicans to win. The court will hear oral arguments and issue a ruling in its next term, which begins in October.

Read more: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-takes-major-new-challenge-campaign-finance-restrictions-rcna214523

---

If they allow this, it will be the final nail.

[Marthe48]

1. Just put all the money in traitor's pocket

Let him maul you as you crawl past him.

[Javaman]

2. Bet on it. nt

[PSPS]

3. "for the Republicans to win"

However, in a 2001 ruling, the court upheld the restrictions at issue in the new case, meaning the justices would have to overturn that decision for the Republicans to win.

A more succinct description would be "the justices would have to [remove all restrictions on bribery, influence peddling and outright purchasing of an elected office by foreign governments and oligarchs of any country] for the Republicans to win [any] elections."

[Bettie]

4. Maybe we need a class action on behalf of those of us who

don't have personal billions to buy an election. We are not being offered equal protection or equal access.

If money is speech, there is no equality, because most of us don't have enough money, even combined to compete with the billionaires and well-funded Super PACs advocating against the majority of people.

[cstanleytech]

5. 6 Justices are more concerned about blocking porn than blocking corrupt politicians.

[D. Spaulding]

6. The amazing amount of cash that the $Trump family

is going to rake in by monetizing this presidency like none before, has a purpose. They know that once daddy Trump is gone, all their influence and schemes are in danger. They need this cash to keep MAGA alive and to maintain political influence. One of the reasons Vance is in favor of easing the restrictions. He doesn't have the personality to draw funds like Trump did. By utilizing this leverage, they're hoping to keep GOP politicians from straying, with threats of primaries etc, just like they used Musk and his checkbook.

[thesquanderer]

7. I actually don't think this is such a big deal...

...because it's relatively minor compared to the bigger problem we already have. It's like being concerned about the draft from an open window when half the house has already fallen down.

from the article:

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

This is about permitting that coordination. The total available to spend would not be changed. Only the ability for them to coordinate with the actual campaign in terms of how and where they spend. Sure, it's bad, but considering the bigger issue of all the money going into parties and pacs in the first place, I suspect the inability to (officially ) coordinate their activities with the campaigns isn't so much of an impediment to begin with, and that the real-world impact would not be so great. In a sense, to a great extent, that ship has already sailed.