WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court will take up the regulation of money in politics in a case that could lead to the overturning of a 2001 decision limiting how much political parties can spend on advertising and other messaging in coordination with a federal candidate.
The court on June 30 agreed to hear a challenge from Republicans to a federal regulation the Trump administration says it can’t defend.
The justices are likely to hear arguments in the fall and hand down a decision next year.
The GOP argues the law and the facts have changed since the Supreme Court last considered the issue.
As a result, they said, political parties have been weakened and leading donors have turned to “super PACs” that act as “shadow parties,” hurting the political system.
Elon Musk contributed $238.5 million to one of the super PACs that helped elect President Donald Trump.
Related: Elon Musk contributed more than $250 million to 2024 campaign groups backing Donald Trump
The case was initiated by Vice President JD Vance when he was a senator, along with former Rep. Steve Chabot, the National Republican Senatorial Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee.
The challenge is part of longstanding debate over how to balance free speech rights with preventing corruption.
The Supreme Court previously said restrictions on how much the parties can spend in direct coordination with a candidate are allowed to prevent donors from evading limits on how much they can contribute to candidates.
But Republicans argue other Supreme Court decisions since then have narrowed the reasons Congress can restrict campaign spending and have led to virtually unlimited spending by super PACs. In addition, Congress has amended the campaign finance laws to allow more coordinated spending in some areas, such as presidential nominating conventions.
The Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the challenge, saying their hands were tied by the high court’s 2001 decision.
“Even when the Supreme Court embraces a new line of reasoning in a given area and even when that reasoning allegedly undercuts the foundation of a decision,” Chief Judge Jeffrey Sutton wrote for the appeals court, “it remains the Court’s job, not ours, to overrule it.”
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Supreme Court will hear major GOP challenge to campaign spending limit
