TO: Interested Parties
FROM: Elias Law Group LLP
This morning the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument in NRSC v. FEC, a case seeking to strike down the limits on how much a political party can spend in coordination with its federal candidates. If the Court rules in favor of the Republicans, it will have two enormous effects. First, it will mean that there is no limit on the amount that a political party committee can spend on behalf of a federal candidate in the form of in-kind contributions. In other words, a party committee would be free to spend as much money as it wanted (raised under much higher contribution limits) to pay for a campaign’s own expenses, including advertising in full coordination with the campaign. Second, it will fundamentally reshape the Supreme Court’s campaign finance jurisprudence in a way that raises serious questions regarding the constitutionality of a number of other campaign finance restrictions. A decision is expected by the first week of July. More background on this critical case is below; for specific questions we encourage clients to reach out to Elias Law Group attorneys.
For decades, the Federal Election Commission and the Department of Justice, under Presidents from both parties, have defended the Federal Election Campaign Act’s limits on “coordinated party expenditures”—the amount of in-kind contributions political party committees can make on behalf of a candidate. In 2001, the Supreme Court, in Colorado II, upheld these limits as constitutional. Despite this longstanding precedent, in 2022, the NRSC, NRCC, and Vice President Vance filed suit challenging the constitutionality of these limits. The U.S. Department of Justice defended the law in the lower court proceedings but, in a stunning departure from precedent, refused to defend the law before the Supreme Court. In light of this refusal, the Elias Law Group intervened in the case on behalf of the Democratic National Committee, DSCC, and DCCC to stand in the place of the U.S. Government to defend a key pillar of campaign finance law.
This morning, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in the case. Marc Elias argued on behalf of the Democratic Party, urging the Justices to open their eyes and understand the practical impact of striking down the coordinated party spending limits. At its core, Mr. Elias argued that striking down the coordinated party spending limits would mean allowing a donor to write a million-dollar check to a joint fundraising committee named after a federal candidate and then watch that joint committee transfer that million dollars to a national party committee that then spends it all directly in coordination with and to benefit such candidate. Such a decision would fundamentally change how American elections are financed and raise serious questions as to the constitutionality of other contribution and spending limits.