Vice President-elect JD Vance and Republican committees have asked the Supreme Court to throw out federal limits that prohibit political parties from arranging spending with representatives on the grounds that they violate the First Amendment.
The limits on the contributions of the candidates are much lower than those of the party committees such as the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) and the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), who are also the plaintiffs along with the former Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio). .
“The political party exists so that its representatives are elected. But Congress has severely restricted how much parties can spend on their advertising if it’s done in partnership with representatives,” the plaintiffs wrote in a petition announced Friday.
The Federal Election Commission (FEC) declined to comment on the matter.
While a candidate can only receive $3,300 per person per election during the 2024 election, the NRSC can collect up to $5,300 from a single donor per cycle.
Limits on how much money party committees spend with candidates have been put in place to prevent corruption and influence by a small group of wealthy people.
The US 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in September ruled against Vance and the party committees, but only because the Supreme Court never overturned a 2001 ruling upholding the limits.
“Even if the Supreme Court embraces a new line of reasoning in a given area and even if that opinion is said to affect the basis of the decision, it remains the Court’s job, not ours, to overrule it,” Chief Justice Jeffrey Sutton wrote on the time.
The plaintiffs urged the court to take the case and set aside the ruling, saying the limits violate the First Amendment rights of political parties and candidates.
“And the violation of this constitution has affected our political system by directing donors to send their money elsewhere, encouraging the ‘rise of “super PACs”‘ and the collapse of the power of political parties in the political market, which is now giving. there is a spike in political polarization and division within the board,” the plaintiffs wrote.
Zach Schonfeld also contributed.
Copyright 2024 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This article may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
For the latest news, weather, sports, and video ads, go to the Hill.