Did the Supreme Court Steal the Midterm Elections?
Restrictions on party committees violated the Constitution—and gave Democrats an advantage.
ET
Can you believe it? The MAGA Supreme Court just rigged the November midterm election for Republicans. Or so goes the story in the liberal press last week after a 6-3 majority struck down federal limits on the amount of money that party committees can spend in coordination with candidates in National Senatorial Campaign Committee v. Federal Election Commission.
Reporters spilled little ink on the majority’s legal analysis, which detailed how spending limits violate the First Amendment’s protection of core political speech. Who cares about the Constitution when an election is around the corner?
“The Supreme Court Just Gave the G.O.P. a New Midterm Edge,” read a New York Times headline. According to Bloomberg News, the ruling by a “Republican-appointed supermajority gives the GOP a financial boost this campaign season” and “may have smoothed the way for Republicans to keep control of Congress in what would otherwise have been a difficult year.”
If Republicans keep control of Congress in November despite long odds, expect Democrats to blame the court’s conservatives rather than acknowledge that nominating and embracing socialist candidates hurt their party.
The justices and their liberal critics agree on one point: The removal of the longstanding limit on coordinated party spending will make campaigns more efficient and effective. Both parties will benefit from being able to better coordinate messages and ads. That should reduce political spending, not increase it as the left claims.
Democrats say the GOP will benefit more from the ruling, since Republican party committees are sitting on twice as much cash as Democratic committees. That also means that the status quo ante benefited Democrats. “We have to really take seriously the fact that we just lost a major advantage that the Democratic Party has had in the last decade,” Danielle Butterfield, president of Democratic super PAC Priorities USA, told Politico.
Republicans funnel more money to party committees, while Democrats give more to candidates. Because federal law and regulations require cable and broadcast TV stations to offer lower ad rates to candidates for public office—but not super PACs or party committees in the 60 days before a general election—Democrats have enjoyed an advertising advantage.
After the ruling, GOP candidates are likely to spend more of their war chests on TV ads while letting party committees focus on get-out-the-vote efforts. This could help Republicans—though mainly by neutralizing an advantage the unconstitutional regulation conferred on Democrats.
Still, if money could buy elections, Michael Bloomberg—who dumped $1.12 billion into his presidential campaign in 2020—would have been the Democratic nominee that year. Andrew Cuomo would be mayor of New York. And billionaire climate activist Tom Steyer would be the California governor in waiting, rather than an also-ran.
In the case of Mr. Steyer, who spent $216 million and finished third, political spending after a certain point (like tax rates on the Laffer curve) probably yielded negative returns as voters tired of his ads. New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani showed how social media can be a more effective medium to reach and galvanize young voters.
Left-wing insurgents demonstrated again in Colorado’s Democratic primaries last week that grassroots organizing and social-media prowess can make up for a financial disadvantage. Socialist Melat Kiros ousted Rep. Diana DeGette even though the 30-year incumbent and super PACs supporting her spent three times as much.
All that said, the court’s ruling could over time strengthen parties and help them quash primary challengers who hurt the party’s reputation and general-election prospects. More money may flow at the margin to party committees rather than super PACs, though federal limits on contributions to the former remain.
The liberal justices claim the NRSC v. FEC and Citizens United v. FEC (2010) turbocharge political spending and invite opportunities for quid pro quo corruption. That’s hard to figure. Since Buckley v. Valeo (1976), candidates have been able to spend unlimited amounts of their own money. Citizens United merely allowed corporations, including nonprofit advocacy groups, and unions to do so as well.
What has turbocharged political spending is the massive expansion of government, which raises the stakes of every election. As Justice Neil Gorsuch noted in a concurring opinion last week, citing an alphabet soup of federal agencies, “a business out of favor with the party in control of the White House might be able to stave off an FCC investigation. But can it survive a subsequent FTC rule declaring unlawful one of its longstanding trade practices? What about an in-house adjudication by OSHA? Or a prosecution for a new crime the SEC announces?”
Businesses donate to curry favor with the overlords who can make or break them (and their competitors). The left lambastes corporate spending, but their socialist agenda will encourage more of it.
