Filed in NRSC v. FEC, the amicus brief draws on originalist scholarship, argues that voters and legislatures should hold primary responsibility for regulating money in elections.
Washington, D.C., August 28 — Today, American Promise filed an amicus brief with the United States Supreme Court regarding NRSC v. FEC, a case challenging limits on financial coordination between political parties and candidates.
The brief, led by Brian Boyle, Chief Program Officer and General Counsel at American Promise, supports neither party in the lawsuit. Instead, it draws on historical and originalist scholarship, and notes that the Court’s landmark 1976 decision in Buckley v. Valeo — which, for the first time, equated political spending with free speech — never considered originalist principles, departing from the Framers’ understanding of the freedom of speech and the role of the judiciary.
“The 1970s were a strange and unsettling era: Stagflation hamstrung our economy, and leisure suits defined men’s fashion from coast to coast,” said Boyle. “But the decade’s most damaging legacy came in the form of Buckley v. Valeo, when the Supreme Court wrested control of campaign finance from voters and their elected representatives who had shaped the rules for over 200 years.”
The Brief:
The American Promise amicus brief offers the Court an approach to campaign finance that is grounded in both the original Founding-era understanding of the First Amendment, and the current consensus among Americans about free speech and money in politics.
The approach described in the brief also aligns with how the First Amendment and constitutional principles would be applied after the ratification of the For Our Freedom Amendment, which American Promise is advancing to provide a durable solution to the decades of Supreme Court campaign finance decisions. The amendment would permanently restore the power of states and Congress to set reasonable limits on money in politics. The amendment does not dictate any particular policy; it simply restores voters’ ability, through their elected representatives, to decide.
When ratified, that amendment would nullify Buckley and subsequent decisions such as Citizens United, becoming the ninth time Americans used the amendment process to overturn Supreme Court decisions that came to be rejected by a consensus of American views about the Constitution.
The brief emphasizes that originalist principles support restoring authority to lawmakers, who are more accountable to citizens and possess democratic legitimacy. Crucially, the brief is narrowly focused on campaign finance and does not take a position on how an originalist conception of the First Amendment might apply to other lines of precedent.
“We don’t need to relitigate all of the Court’s modern First Amendment jurisprudence to recognize that the Framers’ more nuanced, less absolutist understanding of the freedom of speech makes particular sense in the campaign finance context, where so many other constitutional values and compelling sovereign interests are also at stake.”
The brief was drafted and filed by a pro bono team at WilmerHale that represents American Promise in the case, including Felicia Ellsworth, Angela Boettcher, Jonathan Ellison, Madeleine Laupheimer, and Tony Lee. Boyle led the work on the brief for American Promise’s internal legal team, joined by co-founder and CEO Jeff Clements and Legal Counsel and Program Advisor Julie Brogan.
Background:
Following Buckley v. Valeo, decades of subsequent Court rulings have struck down state and federal campaign finance laws, weakening voters’ ability to protect their elections from corruption and out-of-state and foreign influence:
- Citizens United v. FEC (2010): The Court reinforced Buckley’s departure from traditional First Amendment principles and struck down most of the federal Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.
- Arizona Free Enterprise Club v. Bennett (2011) & American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock (2012): The Court went on to curb the power of the states to decide on their own rules for spending in state elections.
- McCutcheon v. FEC (2014): The Court struck down federal guardrails about big donor influence on congressional elections.
- Cruz for Senate v. FEC (2022): The Court invalidated an anticorruption rule that prevented candidates from paying off personal campaign loans with donations made after they won an election.
Meanwhile, political spending has grown dramatically, most recently reaching an estimated $20 billion in the 2024 election cycle. Americans have noticed: A February 2025 Pew Research Center poll shows money in politics is Americans’ top concern, outranking even inflation and immigration.
About American Promise
After a series of Supreme Court decisions including Citizens United, which opened the floodgates to unlimited political spending, Americans have watched money speak louder than their votes. American Promise is a cross-partisan, citizen-led organization working to pass the For Our Freedom Amendment, to restore the power of Congress and the states to set reasonable limits on campaign spending. With 23 states already signaling support, American Promise is building a national movement to put voters back at the center of our elections.
###
