The United States Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in a case that may have a major impact on campaign finance law in early December this year.
Depending how the Justices ultimately rule, this case could potentially overturn a twenty-five year precedent allowing for limitations on “coordinated party expenditures,” or money spent by a political party at the direction of a particular candidate.
Originally brought several years ago by the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), former former Rep. Steve Chabot (R-OH), and then-Senator — now Vice President — J.D. Vance, this case challenges these restrictions on the grounds that they represent a violation of the First Amendment.
When this challenge was before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, it was concluded that the court was bound by the Supreme Court’s 2001 ruling in FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee, preventing them from considering the possibility of overturning the regulations.
Taking place over the course of about a decade and a half, FEC stemmed from a series of radio ads that ran in April of 1986 and cost a total of $15,000.
Following some preliminary back and forth related to the specifics of the underlying situation, a First Amendment challenge emerged with respect to the limitations placed on coordinated party expenditures.
When the case finally reached the Supreme Court for a second time many years later in 2001, the Justices ruled that the restrictions were constitutional on the grounds that they serve to help “minimize circumvention of [individual] contribution limits.”
Consequently, regulation of coordinated party expenditures has remained permissible for nearly twenty-five years.
With this new case now coming before the Court, however, change could potentially be on the horizon if the Justices are convinced by the arguments presented by the NRSC that such limits are unconstitutional.
Oral arguments in this case are set to take place in just a few weeks on December 9, 2025.
[RELATED: First Circuit Court of Appeals to Consider Challenge of Maine’s New Super PAC Contribution Limits]
Right now in Maine, campaign finance limits of a different kind are being put in the spotlight for potential constitutional concerns.
Brought by the Dinner Table — a Maine PAC focused on “faith, family, and freedom” and dedicated to supporting “conservative candidates” — and its founder, Alex Titcomb, an ongoing case seeks to challenge the state’s new $5,000 annual limit on contributions to “independent-expenditure only” PACs, more commonly known as Super PACs.
This law was first brought about last year after voters overwhelmingly approved a citizens initiative proposing the measure at the ballot box in November of 2024.
In July of this year, U.S. Magistrate Judge Karen Wolf permanently enjoined the State of Maine from enforcing the new limits on Super PAC contributions, citing the Supreme Court’s fifteen-year-old ruling in Citizens United which she said “forecloses limits on contribution to independent expenditure groups.”
She also found that the law’s disclosure requirements were in violation of the First Amendment because they would encompass all Super PAC donors, regardless of how much any one person contributed.
Currently, donors who contribute smaller amounts are not subject to having their identities revealed in campaign finance disclosure reports.
Under Maine state law, “independent expenditures” are defined as any communication expense — such as for advertisements or phone banks — that clearly advocates for or against a particular candidate but is not made a result of communication or coordination with a candidate.
While traditional PACs can make contributions to political candidates in addition to making independent expenditures, they are already limited to receiving no more than $5,000 a year from any single donor.
Although Super PACs cannot donate directly to candidates, they have been eligible to receive unlimited contributions from their donors.
Under the challenged law, however, contributions made by both individuals and businesses to PACs “for the purpose of making independent expenditures” would have been limited to a total of $5,000 per calendar year as well.
