On Tuesday. December 9, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission— which finds allies of President Donald Trump challenging a federal law limiting the amount of money that political parties can spend in coordination. The High Court's 6-3 GOP-appointed supermajority has been quite favorable to Trump in a long list of rulings, but The New Republic's Matt Ford, in an article published on December 10, lays out some reasons why he believes this case may not go Trump's way.
"The Supreme Court appeared uncertain about whether it would strike down a major campaign-finance restriction during oral arguments on Tuesday, with some of the Court's conservative members questioning a right-wing push to do so," Ford explains. "The case, National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, revolves around a legal challenge to Congress' ban on 'coordinated party expenditures.' Federal election law currently forbids political parties from coordinating their election spending with federal candidates for office."
Ford adds, "A group of challengers, including the GOP's Senate campaign-finance arm and Vice President J.D. Vance, argued that the ban violates their First Amendment rights to political speech through campaign spending."
Ford notes that Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, one of the High Court's three Democratic appointees, was "not persuaded" by the plaintiffs' arguments during the December 9 hearing — and that Justice Sonia Somayor, appointed by former President Barack Obama, "strenuously disputed" assertions by Noel Francisco, a witness for the plaintiffs.
But it is the GOP appointees who Ford says give him reason to believe that in the end, the National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission ruling won't go the plaintiffs' way.
"In addition to (Justice Clarence) Thomas, whose questions suggested concerns about the Court's own jurisdiction over the matter, Chief Justice John Roberts signaled that he might not accept the challengers' interpretation of the law in question," Ford observes. "He asked Francisco to explain the difference between 'coordinated expenditures' and actual contributions, describing it as a 'legal fiction'…. While none of the conservatives expressed regret about their past rulings, only Justice Samuel Alito seemed interested in lauding them…. Justice (Brett) Kavanaugh's questions expressed some concern that the 'overall architecture of our jurisprudence' may have 'weakened or disadvantaged political parties as compared to outside groups,' but did not clearly signal what conclusions that might lead him to."
Ford adds, "Justice Neil Gorsuch asked no questions, while Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked only one that shed little light on her overall thinking.
Matt Ford's full article for The New Republic is available at this link.