 The Supreme Court just heard oral arguments in National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) v. Federal Election Commission (FEC) — a case brought by Republican campaign committees, Vice President JD Vance from his time in the Senate and former Rep. Steve Chabot of Ohio. Their decision could blow a hole straight through our campaign finance laws and open the floodgates to legalized corruption. Federal law limits coordinated spending for one clear reason: to curb bribery by preventing political parties from serving as pipelines for big-donor money to candidates. These limits were upheld by the Supreme Court 20 years ago, when it decided that coordinated expenditures functioned in practice as direct contributions to candidates. If those limits fall now, the door opens to legalized pay-to-play. That’s why CREW filed an amicus brief in October, urging the Court to uphold the law. Our brief was mentioned multiple times in the Court’s oral arguments in the case, including by Justice Sotomayor who pointed to the examples we identified showing that earmarking rules were not enough to prevent corruption. That means our brief could have an impact as the justices weigh the future of campaign finance law.
The NRSC claims that the coordination limit is unnecessary because existing rules are sufficient to prevent donors from exceeding the contribution limit — namely, federal earmarking rules. But as we lay out in our amicus brief, earmarking rules and disclosure laws cannot prevent all quid pro quo corruption arising from coordinated expenditures. Our brief outlines six cases that expose the limitations of earmarking rules. In these cases, donors secretly earmarked funds for specific candidates and the recipients failed to apply earmarking rules. In two of those cases, donors claimed they weren’t directing how their money would be used. But behind the scenes, the recipients spent the funds exactly as the donors wanted. The money was effectively earmarked — just hidden from public view. Disclosure laws help after the fact, but they don’t stop corruption before it takes root. By the time the public sees the money, the damage is already done. John, our brief is clear: earmarking rules are easy to game and nowhere near strong enough to protect our democracy on their own. That’s why the Supreme Court must uphold firm limits on coordinated spending — before legalized corruption becomes the norm.
Thank you, CREW HQ |
||||||||||||||||||||
|