(Washington) The US Supreme Court on Tuesday weighed the cap on electoral campaign financing contested by Republicans, including Vice-President JD Vance, which could influence the result of the mid-term elections in 2026.
Published at
The conservative-majority Court already lifted all limits on corporate and union contributions to electoral campaigns in 2010. She did the same for individual donations in 2014, each time to the great dismay of Democrats who denounced the power of influence of the most fortunate.
In question on Tuesday before the nine judges, the expenses that each party can incur to support its candidates. Their amount is not limited as such, but there is a ceiling on the expenses that the party is allowed to “coordinate” with its candidates.
Lifting this regulation would likely benefit Republican candidates, who are more dependent on this type of funding coordinated with their party than their Democratic opponents.
When he was a senator in 2022, JD Vance, along with other Republicans, unsuccessfully challenged this regulation in court, arguing that it violated free speech.
Supporters of maintaining this cap assure, on the contrary, that it helps prevent the corruption of candidates by large donors through the party.
During the debates on Tuesday, no majority clearly emerged in one direction or the other, the progressive judges nevertheless appearing more concerned about the consequences of lifting this cap than their conservative colleagues.
“Once we remove these limits on coordinated spending, what will be left? There will be nothing left, no more control,” said progressive Sonia Sotomayor to the Republicans’ lawyer.
Conservative Brett Kavanaugh expressed concern that “the combination of campaign finance laws and decisions of this Court over the years has reduced the power of political parties relative to outside groups, with negative effects on our constitutional democracy.”
He was referring in particular to “superPACS” (“super political action committees”), which can raise funds from companies, unions, associations and individuals, in an unlimited manner, to redistribute them to the candidate of their choice.
If the Court rules in favor of the Republican plaintiffs, “the practical effect will be to transform political parties into simple cashiers responsible for paying invoices to campaign suppliers,” said the Democrats’ lawyer, Marc Elias.
Without the existing limits, parties will be forced to concentrate most of their funds on this financial “arms race” in electoral campaigns, he estimated.
The Court’s decision is expected by the end of its session at the end of June, four months before the midterm elections.
