Today, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, siding with the Republican Party’s efforts to overturn decades of precedent and rewrite campaign finance laws, and eliminate a key safeguard against corruption in our elections.
House and Senate Democratic candidates have consistently outraised their Republican opponents, powered by strong grassroots support from voters. Republicans’ scheme to overturn campaign finance law is a clear and blatant effort to rewrite election rules for their own benefit and spend more money from billionaires to prop up their candidates. Last year, the DNC, DSCC, and DCCC were forced to take action after the Trump administration broke with 50 years of precedent and refused to defend the law following the NRSC’s lawsuit to overturn it. The three committees filed a motion to intervene, which the Supreme Court granted, allowing the committees to defend federal election law against the Republican Party’s challenge.
DNC Chair Ken Martin, DSCC Chair Kirsten Gillibrand, and DCCC Chair Suzan DelBene released the following statement:
“Today’s ruling is a win for billionaire donors and special interests who want more influence over the GOP agenda and an invitation for corruption. Republicans have failed the American people with a record that has ripped away health care and raised costs on families, and they know voters will hold them accountable in November – which is exactly why they are rewriting the rules in an effort to drown out the will of the voters by flooding elections with more money from their billionaire backers. Democrats are fighting back for the American people, and in November, voters will reject Republicans’ toxic agenda and efforts to rig the system and weaken our democracy by electing a Democratic House and Senate majority.”
Key takeaways:
- Democratic candidates for House and Senate have consistently outraised their Republican opponents in key races, powered by grassroots support from voters.
- The Solicitor General, in a brief to the United States Supreme Court, made clear that advertising paid for by a national political party committee does not qualify for lowest unit charge under the Communications Act. The Solicitor General expressly stated that the Communications Act “require[s] broadcasters to charge low rates for candidate spending, but not for party spending—whether coordinated or independent.”
- There are two pending lawsuits to prevent national party committees from accessing lowest unit rate, and to prevent national party committees from using specialty funds on advertising.
