Supreme Court backs GOP challenge to campaign finance law

The Supreme Court agreed with Vice President Vance that federal limits on how much political parties can spend in coordination with their candidates violate his First Amendment rights, siding with Republicans on Tuesday in a campaign finance battle that became a tug-of-war between the major political parties.

The 6-3 majority ruled the limits violate Vance’s constitutional free speech protections.

“Whether the Democratic party, the Republican party, or other parties, all political parties and candidates going forward can compete equally under the same rules regarding coordinated expenditures and can structure their fundraising, spending, and political speech on a level playing field as they see fit within the law,” Kavanaugh wrote for the majority.

In 2001, the Supreme Court rejected a challenge to an earlier version of the restrictions in a 5-4 decision.

About two decades later, Vance, when still a senator representing Ohio, brought a new challenge, alongside former Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) and the GOP Senate and House campaign arms. They argued that recent Supreme Court decisions, changes to the law and the rise of super PAC spending meant the precedent shouldn’t survive.

At the center of the battle is a balance between free speech and the government’s interest in combating corruption.

The limits were first enacted in the 1970s as part of broader campaign finance reforms in the wake of the Watergate scandal.

Defenders say the limits prevent donors from laundering bribes to candidates via their political parties, to which donors can contribute more dollars each election cycle.

The federal government abandoned defending the limits once Trump took office and control of the Justice Department. It spurred the Democratic National Committee to step in and appear at the arguments to make the case for keeping the restrictions intact, setting up a tug-of-war between the two political parties.

DEVELOPING.