Photo:
ELIZABETH FRANTZ/REUTERS
Voters were barraged with information as usual about candidates this year, but they might be surprised to know how little came from the political parties. The Supreme Court has gradually been fixing its 20th-century mistakes that allowed restrictions on political speech, and the next step may concern political party committees.
That’s the subject of a new legal challenge by the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the National Republican Congressional Committee, J.D. Vance and Ohio Rep.
Steven Chabot.
The complaint in federal court in Ohio says the Federal Election Commission’s restriction on candidates’ ability to coordinate with political party committees is selective speech rationing and violates the First Amendment.
The restrictions are based on a pair of Supreme Court cases known as Colorado I and Colorado II, which govern political party spending. In FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee (Colorado II) in 2001, the Court held that parties’ coordinated spending with a political campaign was the “functional equivalent of contributions,” and thus should remain limited.
Later precedents have put the Colorado cases out of step with the Court’s enhanced respect for political speech. Citizens United in 2010 overturned limits on what independent groups can spend to advocate for or against candidates. In McCutcheon v. FEC in 2014, the Court allowed citizens to donate to as many candidates or party groups as they wish.
And in FEC v.
Ted Cruz
for Senate this year, the Justices wrote that they have “recognized only one permissible ground for restricting political speech: the prevention of ‘quid pro quo’ corruption or its appearance.” Where’s the quid pro quo risk between party committees and their own candidates?
Limits on contributions and coordinated expenditures mean political parties must put up a firewall between the main…
Click Here to Read the Full Original Article at RSSOpinion…