On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a lower court decision maintaining limits on coordination between political parties and candidates. The case at issue involved collusion between the Republican National Committee and the 2008 campaign of former Louisiana Congressman Ahn “Joseph” Cao regarding the timing of an ad aired in Cao’s district. The cooperation was deemed by the FEC to comprise a contribution by the RNC to the Cao campaign in excess of the legal $5,000 limit.
In the case, Cao v. FEC, the plaintiffs argued that the limit on contributions from a political party to a candidate’s campaign committee violates the candidate’s free speech by limiting their access to the capital required to disseminate that speech. This argument was rejected by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in September 2010. In the wake of the Citizens United case, campaign finance watchdog groups feared that the Roberts court would overturn the appellate court decision, but the Supreme Court has instead deferred to precedent and allowed the $5,000 limit to remain in place.
The Supreme Court ruled on a similar issue in its 2001 decision in FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee. In that ruling, the court found that assistance offered to campaigns by state parties is equivalent to a contribution. In June 2010, the court made a similar decision in Cao’s 2008 companion case, RNC v. FEC, upholding limits on “soft money” contributions to political parties established by the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.
“The Supreme Court appears to want to maintain regulations on how parties raise and spend money in state and federal elections,” says Tara Malloy, an associate counsel with the Campaign Legal Center, a campaign finance watchdog organization. “Because parties are so close to candidates and can act as fundraising conduits for them, the fact that they remain under some regulation is seen as a positive thing by reformers.”
The RNC takes a more critical view of the ruling. “We are disappointed that the Supreme Court has chosen not review this case involving important First Amendment rights,” said RNC Chairman Reince Priebus in a prepared statement. “Current law places severe and unconstitutional limitations on the free speech of political parties. In the interest of maintaining healthy political debate, parties must be able to work with candidates without sacrificing the ability to express their members’ views.”
Malloy says that it is interesting to note which campaign finance cases the Supreme Court chooses to hear and which it doesn’t. “This is the second case that the Supreme Court has declined to intervene in,” she says. “The court has seemingly accepted the restrictions that currently exist on party financing in elections.” She does, however, concede that the Roberts court wants to expand the power of private citizens and organizations to spend in elections, as evidenced by their Citizens United decision.
Noah Rothman is the online editor at C&E. Email him at nrothman@campaignsandelections.com
In the case, Cao v. FEC, the plaintiffs argued that the limit on contributions from a political party to a candidate’s campaign committee violates the candidate’s free speech by limiting their access to the capital required to disseminate that speech. This argument was rejected by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in September 2010. In the wake of the Citizens United case, campaign finance watchdog groups feared that the Roberts court would overturn the appellate court decision, but the Supreme Court has instead deferred to precedent and allowed the $5,000 limit to remain in place.
The Supreme Court ruled on a similar issue in its 2001 decision in FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee. In that ruling, the court found that assistance offered to campaigns by state parties is equivalent to a contribution. In June 2010, the court made a similar decision in Cao’s 2008 companion case, RNC v. FEC, upholding limits on “soft money” contributions to political parties established by the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.
“The Supreme Court appears to want to maintain regulations on how parties raise and spend money in state and federal elections,” says Tara Malloy, an associate counsel with the Campaign Legal Center, a campaign finance watchdog organization. “Because parties are so close to candidates and can act as fundraising conduits for them, the fact that they remain under some regulation is seen as a positive thing by reformers.”
The RNC takes a more critical view of the ruling. “We are disappointed that the Supreme Court has chosen not review this case involving important First Amendment rights,” said RNC Chairman Reince Priebus in a prepared statement. “Current law places severe and unconstitutional limitations on the free speech of political parties. In the interest of maintaining healthy political debate, parties must be able to work with candidates without sacrificing the ability to express their members’ views.”
Malloy says that it is interesting to note which campaign finance cases the Supreme Court chooses to hear and which it doesn’t. “This is the second case that the Supreme Court has declined to intervene in,” she says. “The court has seemingly accepted the restrictions that currently exist on party financing in elections.” She does, however, concede that the Roberts court wants to expand the power of private citizens and organizations to spend in elections, as evidenced by their Citizens United decision.
Noah Rothman is the online editor at C&E. Email him at nrothman@campaignsandelections.com
Comments
Be the first to comment on this article!