“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
What’s at stake in this case?
Several Republican party committees and officials sought to overturn prior court decisions to allow political parties and committee to make campaign expenditures in coordination with election candidates
.
What happened in this case?
In 2022, several Republican committees and candidates, including then-Senate candidate JD Vance, sued the Federal Election Commission (FEC), seeking to overturn prior court decisions and have the courts declare that it is perfectly legal under the First Amendment for political parties and committees to make campaign expenditures and contributions in coordination with election candidates, despite a federal law. This would reverse prior decisions that upheld Watergate-era campaign finance reform.
The Supreme Court agreed to review the issue. Although the federal government had originally supported the legislation, the Trump Administration switched sides and argued that it should be ruled unconstitutional. That is precisely what the Court did in a 6-3 June decision made possible by the three Trump justices in National Republican Senatorial Comm. v FEC. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the decision, joined by Trump justices Gorsuch and Barrett as well as Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas and Alito. Justice Elena Kagan dissented, joined by Justice Sotomayor and Jackson.
What was the rationale of Justice Kavanaugh and the majority?
Justice Kavanaugh acknowledged that the Court had previously upheld FECA’s limits on coordinated party expenditures in Colorado Republican Federal Camp. Comm v FEC in 2001. Kavanaugh maintained, however, that later decisions have “rejected” the case’s reasoning and it is “no longer good law.” Just as there are no limits on independent expenditures by parties under the First Amendment, Kavanaugh claimed, there should be little or no limits on coordinated party expenditures either.
Why did Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson dissent?
Justice Kagan strongly dissented. She explained that over the last half century, just as FECA has guarded against “quid pro quo” corruption by limiting the amount that a donor can contribute directly to a political candidate, it has prevented “circumvention” of such limits by ”capping” political parties’ “coordinated expenditures” with candidates and thus preventing the parties from becoming “alternative checking accounts” for candidates. Allowing unlimited coordinated party expenditures, she went on, would be “as though the candidate contribution limits did not exist.” The result, she wrote, will be a “legal regime increasingly unable to stop political corruption and thus to preserve our institutions’ democratic legitimacy.”
Why is this decision harmful?
The campaign finance ruling made possible by Trump justices Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Barrett seriously undermines, and threatens to reverse, our nation’s post-Watergate political reforms to combat corruption in our politics. It also encourages efforts by Trump justices and others to eliminate previous decisions helping to preserve our democracy with the practical effect of helping Republicans in upcoming elections. In addition, the ruling illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.