Supreme Court divided over GOP-led effort to lift campaign spending caps

By John Fritze, CNN

(CNN) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday left open the possibility that it might raise caps on how much money political parties may spend in coordination with candidates in a case initially filed by then-Senate candidate JD Vance.

But after more than two hours of oral arguments — and warnings that the court’s decision could upend the way American campaigns are funded — it was not clear which way the court would rule. Several key justices asked only a few questions, possibly keeping their options open.

Republicans who are challenging the regulations walked into the Supreme Court with the upper hand given that the court has repeatedly struck down other campaign finance rules. And at least a few of the court’s conservative justices appeared willing to do so again.

“I am concerned, as you said, that the combination of campaign finance laws and this court’s decisions over the years, together, have reduced the power of political parties as compared to outside groups with negative effects on our constitutional democracy,” said Justice Brett Kavanaugh, picking up an argument from the GOP campaign groups that lifting the caps might help funnel more money into traditional parties rather than to super PACs.

Kavanaugh, a conservative, said he is also concerned about the arguments from opponents who say lifting the caps might encourage corruption.

Critics say the justices should dismiss the case, in part because Vance hasn’t offered any concrete plans to run for president in 2028. But that argument, which would give the court an out to avoid deciding the more fundamental questions raised by the case, appeared to get little traction Tuesday.

In 2022, Vance and several party committees — including the National Republican Senatorial Committee — challenged the law as a violation of the First Amendment. Roman Martinez, who was appointed by the court to defend the caps, said the Republican groups’ arguments would create a slippery slope that would lead to challenges of other campaign finance caps.

“The dominos are going to fall and you’re going to have to reconstruct campaign finance law from the ground up,” Martinez warned the court.

Justice Samuel Alito, a conservative, brushed that suggestion aside, calling it “speculative” and noting that the court had only “one provision before us today.”

The cap at issue involves money spent by parties, such as on advertising, in coordination with a candidate. For 2024, the limits ranged from $123,600 to $3,772,100 for Senate candidates, and from $61,800 to $123,600 for House candidates, according to court records. The caps change based on the office sought, the voting-age population and inflation.

Super PACs, by contrast, may collect unlimited funds but they may not coordinate with the campaign they’re attempting to help, which means they sometimes run advertising that is not directly on message with what the candidate wants.

‘Every time we interfere … we make matters worse’

Campaign finance experts and the Democratic groups that have intervened in the case argue that lifting the caps would effectively open a loophole around limits on how much donors may give to federal candidates.

Deep-pocketed donors could instead give tens of thousands of dollars each year to party committees with the understanding that the money be spent on a given candidate.

The court’s three liberal justices — Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson — appeared united in opposition to the GOP groups.

“Every time we interfere with the congressional design, we make matters worse,” Sotomayor said. “Our tinkering causes more harm than it does good.”

A divided 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the caps but made clear it might have ruled differently if it was “faced with a clear playing field” rather than the 2001 precedent that previously upheld the caps.

In an unusual move, the Justice Department, representing the Federal Election Commission, told the Supreme Court earlier this year it would not defend the caps. The court then named Martinez to defend the 6th Circuit decision.

Calling the case a “walking vehicle problem” Martinez has argued the court should dismiss it on technical grounds. For one thing, Martinez has argued, Vance is no longer affected by the caps because he’s offered coy public statements about whether he is planning to run for federal office.

“Isn’t that what potential candidates always say until the day when they make the announcement?” Alito said. “That’s what they always say.”

A decision is expected before the end of June.

This story and headline have been updated following oral arguments.

The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2025 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.