Supreme Court Grapples With Whether to Lift Campaign Finance Limits
From The New York Times: The Supreme Court recently heard arguments on whether to remove yet another campaign finance limit ahead of the 2026 midterms, in the case NRSC v. FEC. Under current law, political parties are limited on how much money they can spend in coordination with candidates. Republican groups are challenging the law on the grounds that limits on campaign spending violate the First Amendment. If the regulation were removed, parties would be able to spend unlimited amounts of money in coordination with campaigns, allowing them to buy advertising at the low rates broadcasters are required to offer candidates. The individual donation limit to parties is significantly higher than the donation limit to candidates.
Originalism’s campaign finance conundrum
From SCOTUSblog: This article by American Promise Chief Program Officer & General Counsel Brian Boyle addresses some of the legal doctrines underpinning NRSC v. FEC. Boyle argues that Buckley v. Valeo, the 1976 Supreme Court case that underpins much of modern campaign finance regulation, was decided in contradiction to the legal theory of originalism, and that in deciding NRSC the Supreme Court ought to consider this contradiction and the effects it has had on the democratic process.
Congressional seats, even the safe ones, don’t come cheap
From OpenSecrets: Analysis by OpenSecrets found that the total cost of congressional races in 2024 was $9.5 billion, counting both direct spending by candidates and spending by independent groups. The sheer cost of running for Congress affects who can successfully run. The majority of Congress is now millionaires, while just 2% of Congress is made up of people from working class backgrounds. Even races expected to be safe are expensive: Republican Representative Robert Aderholt, who ran in an extremely safe rural district in northern Alabama, raised $1.5 million. On the top end, former Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown raised over $100 million for his re-election campaign in Ohio and still lost.
As Hochul Considers an A.I. Bill, Its Sponsor Throws Her a Fund-Raiser
From The New York Times: Alex Bores, a New York State Assemblyman who sponsored an AI regulation bill, hosted a fundraiser that raised nearly $250,000 in contributions from supporters of the bill, money that went to Governor Kathy Hochul, who is considering whether to sign the bill. Bores’ bill, and AI regulation broadly, has attracted a tremendous amount of campaign spending. Bores raised nearly $1.2 million for his campaign for the U.S. House, while an AI industry-funded SuperPAC has said it will spend $10 million opposing his campaign.
Public launch of updated Oklahoma campaign finance system still delayed
From Oklahoma Voice: The Oklahoma Ethics Commission database that tracks campaign spending and lobbying in the state, known as Guardian, was inaccessible to the public since September, after it was taken down for updates due to a vendor no longer supporting the old system. Members of the public could directly request campaign finance information from the Commission, but there was no way to quickly access the data, even as elections were ongoing and candidates and lobbyists needed to file with the Commission. On December 19th, the Ethics Commission voted to re-enable public access to the database and seek legal action against RFD & Associates, the software vendor that was supposed to provide the new system.
