Supreme Court Affirms Constitutionality of Political Party Soft Money Ban in Order Issued Today

| |  by

 

Statement of Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer

The Supreme Court this morning summarily affirmed the lower court decision in Republican Party of Louisiana v. FEC.  Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch noted they would have set the case for argument. 

In the case, the Louisiana Republican Party challenged the rules in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) that prevent state parties from being able to spend unlimited money, or soft money, to influence federal elections.

These rules were upheld by the Supreme Court twice before, first in the Court’s 2003 decision in McConnell v. FEC and then in another summary affirmance by the Court in a 2010 case, RNC v FEC. 

Based on these two prior Supreme Court decisions upholding the state party soft money rules, the three-judge district court rejected this third challenge to the same rules brought by the Louisiana Republican Party. The Party then appealed to the Supreme Court.

In an amicus brief submitted with Public Citizen and the Campaign Legal Center, Democracy 21 urged the Supreme Court to reject this new challenge and summarily affirm the lower court decision. The Court did so this morning, summarily rejecting this latest challenge.

This should put to rest the issue of the constitutionality of the political party soft money ban.

The decision also means that the Supreme Court majority has once again upheld the concept of limits on contributions to candidates and parties. This is a major area of campaign finance law that has withstood the onslaught that the Supreme Court has made on other campaign finance rules.

The BCRA party soft money rules were enacted in 2002 to stop the flow of unlimited contributions through state political parties into federal elections. The decision today reaffirms that Congress clearly has the authority, consistent with the First Amendment, to require that money spent by state parties to influence federal elections be subject to federal contribution limits.