Supreme Court Asked to Ax More Campaign Finance Limits

[applegrove]

Supreme Court Asked to Ax More Campaign Finance Limits

December 9, 2025 at 7:39 am EST By Taegan Goddard 42 Comments

https://politicalwire.com/2025/12/09/supreme-court-asked-to-ax-more-campaign-finance-limits/

“The Supreme Court on Tuesday will hear a major challenge to the way political campaigns are funded that could sharply reduce one of Democrats’ financial advantages in recent years,” the New York Times reports.

“Fifteen years ago, the Supreme Court dramatically remade the campaign finance landscape in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, a landmark case in which the justices struck down legal limits on independent political spending by corporations and unions, allowing a flood of new money to enter politics.”

“The court has been chipping away at campaign finance restrictions ever since.”

[Irish_Dem]

1. Supreme Court loves bribery, corruption, etc.

This is how they live the good life, their luxury lifestyle.

[Lovie777]

2. The speed that they are taking these cases...................

something afoot.

That said, the American people will never go for a successor instead of election of a political office.

[Icanthinkformyself]

3. The loss of the funding may have not been an issue

now if the DLC hadn't abandoned working people and the middle class in the 1990s to cash in on all of that oligarch PAC money. I'm not sure how much more of the country that the robber barons can buy. They seem to own it all already.

[William Seger]

4. What case are they deciding?

Nothing in that article, and only one line in the original NYT story:

"The case the justices are hearing on Tuesday involves one of the remaining limits: how much money political parties can spend in coordination with candidates."

[applegrove]

5. Democrats had the advantage in getting lower ad costs

when they put their limited fundraising towards tv ads vs PACs who don't get the same financial breaks. Get rid of the distinction between small dollar fundraising and PACs and that advantage goes away.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=20856151

Depending on its scope, such a decision could swing the pendulum of power back toward the official political parties and away from super PACs. It could also allow parties to spend huge sums from big donors directly on candidates, potentially expanding the influence of big money compared with small-dollar contributions. Democrats in recent years have done better than Republicans at winning smaller donations.

In practical terms, a win for the Republicans could have an immediate impact on the midterm elections, shrinking one of the Democratic Party’s major financial advantages: lower costs for political candidates who directly buy broadcast advertising time.

Under federal law, broadcasters must offer political candidates low advertising rates. But they are not required to give super PACs those same low rates. Super PACs often pay double, triple and even four times as much money for the same TV spots as do candidates.

[William Seger]

6. Thanks -- it helps to know why we should be worried (nt)

[pecosbob]

7. Montana state law limits corporate contributions to political candidates...why can't other states follow suit?