8legs: Nrsc v. fec

#1 out of 1

Republicans ask the Supreme Court to gut one of the last limits on money in politics

The Supreme Court is likely to rule against broad campaign finance restrictions in NRSC v. FEC, potentially expanding coordinated party spending.
Vox notes the Court's conservative majority has already weakened several money-in-politics rules, including Citizens United.
The case centers on caps on how much party committees can spend in coordination with candidates for federal office.
Supporters argue limiting coordinated spending prevents evasion of direct contribution caps.
Republican Justices in past rulings have given broad leeway to influence-buying arguments in campaign finance.
The article cites McCutcheon as precedent that money laundering via party channels is not easily curbed.
Vox emphasizes a long-standing split: Democrats view money as corrupting, while Republicans narrow corruption to quid pro quo.
The piece highlights that the Court’s current term adds to the momentum against existing limits.
Vox outlines how donors use PACs and parties to influence campaigns amid weakened direct limits.
The analysis contrasts the practical effect of limits vs. unlimited Super PAC spending.
The article frames NRSC v. FEC as part of a broader shift toward less regulation of political money.
Vox notes the potential full impact could extend beyond one case to party influence in elections nationwide.

Vote 0