Chip Somodevilla/Zuma
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Tuesday in a case that could unravel the final remaining limits on the ultra-rich writing unlimited checks to their preferred federal candidates, opening the door even wider to political corruption. The liberal justices were clearly opposed to further weakening campaign finance rules, a path long-favored by the court’s Republican wing and that the Democratic-appointed judges have been dragged down kicking and screaming. Today’s oral arguments were no exception. If the court’s majority is going to make it even easier for the Elon Musks of the world to buy elections and reap the rewards, the dissenters will at least call it out.
Every few years, the GOP majority pushes us closer and closer to a system of election by oligarchs.
The Federal Election Campaign Act limits how much money individuals can give to federal candidates in hopes of limiting quid pro quo corruption—deals like, for example, I give you a million dollars and you give me a subsidy. Likewise, FECA limits the amount that parties can spend in coordination with a candidate, an acknowledgement that unlimited coordinated spending would effectively greenlight large donations to the candidate from a single source. For this reason—despite the court’s steady erosion of campaign finance law—for now unlimited donations must go to vehicles like super PACs, which are technically barred from coordinating with candidates, while donations to parties and candidates remain subject to Congressionally-set limits.
In 2022, the Republican Party arms that work to elect Senate and House members, the National Republican Senatorial Committee and the National Republican Congressional Campaign Committee, alongside then-Senate candidate JD Vance and another Ohio Republican candidate, challenged these coordinated spending limits as a violation of the party’s First Amendment free speech rights.
The case is a partisan brawl. The Republican litigants are opposed by Democratic committees seeking to keep the limits in place. Republicans have recently relied more heavily on the unlimited spending of super PACs; a decision in their favor would allow the party to bring that massive but uncoordinated super PAC spending in-house and let donors write large (but still limited) checks to the parties to spend in open coordination with GOP candidates.
Elon Musk, for example, used his own PAC in 2024 to funnel upwards of $300 million to Republican candidates, mostly Donald Trump. In return, he got to spend months dismantling the federal government, investigations against his companies were dropped, and new contracts were awarded. If Republicans win the case, next time, Musk could donate some of that directly to the GOP to spend in direct consultation with Musk’s preferred candidates.
During oral arguments, attorney Noel Francisco, a former solicitor general during Trump’s first term, argued on behalf of the Republicans that eliminating the coordination limits would not increase the actuality or appearance of quid pro quo corruption, claiming no such corruption has ever occurred. Justice Sonia Sotomayor indignantly schooled him on the relevant history.
“You keep saying there’s no evidence of this kind of coordination resulting in a quid pro quo or the appearance thereof,” Sotomayor told Francisco. “But the whole campaign finance law is based on just such evidence… The dairy industry channeled millions of dollars to President Nixon through the Republican Party and its committees. The industry landed a $100 million subsidy from President Nixon in return. Was there a quid pro quo? There certainly was an appearance of quid pro quo. That’s what started the entire campaign finance reform legislation.”
“If there’s not direct evidence, it’s because our umbrella is working,” Sotomayor continued, referring to a famous dissent by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in which she analogized striking down a law that works to block bad behavior to “throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.”
A few minutes later, Sotomayor noted the gobs of money that Trump and President Joe Biden both raised in 2024 through committees jointly run with the parties. When Francisco responded that this enormous fundraising didn’t lead to any—or even the appearance of—quid pro quo corruption, Sotomayor brought up an obvious rejoinder from that election: Musk.
The best argument the Republicans’ lawyer had was to pretend he didn’t understand the question.
“You mean to suggest the fact that one major donor to the current president, the most major donor to the current president, got a very lucrative job immediately upon election from the new administration does not give the appearance with pro quo?” she pressed.
Francisco feigned ignorance. “Your Honor, I’m not 100 percent sure about the example that you’re looking at, but if I am familiar, if I think I know what you’re talking about, I have a hard time thinking that his salary that he drew from the federal government was an effective quid pro quo bribery,” Francisco said with a chuckle. “Maybe not the salary, but certainly the lucrative contracts,” Sotomayor responded.
It was a striking moment. It appeared that the best argument that a talented lawyer had in the face of clear evidence of corruption was to pretend he didn’t understand the question. This refusal to see what is apparent will be likely resurface if the conservative justices decide to jettison yet more restrictions on billionaires influencing elections—even as it stares them in the face.
While the case was technically over the First Amendment and the definition of speech, there was very little talk about that. Instead, several GOP appointees voiced concerns that political parties have been weakened thanks to the rise of super PACs, and that allowing unlimited coordinated spending by parties would restore the parties’ power by encouraging donors to send their money there. Francisco embraced the argument. But it is obvious why this reasoning was maddening to the liberals.
First, that’s not a First Amendment determination, but a policy preference, and pushing one through is not what the court is supposed to do—though that isn’t likely to stop the GOP-appointed majority. Second, the only reason super PACs have so much money is that the Supreme Court lifted outside contribution limits, first in 2010’s Citizens United and, again, in a 2014 case called McCutcheon. Francisco’s argument that the court needs to unravel yet more of Congress’ rules because its meddling has already messed things up is not a strong one. It’s a bait and switch: Now that you gave us what we wanted, you actually have to give us more of what we want.
Indeed, Francisco acknowledged that if his GOP clients win and the limits are lifted, they will soon be back before the court asking for even more. And this time, the logic of any restrictions on campaign donations will be in Constitutional jeopardy.
Attorney Roman Martinez, whom the court appointed to defend the limits because the Trump administration declined to do so, called out that risk, and how this case would cascade into a total erosion of campaign finance law. “This wolf comes as a wolf,” he said, quoting a 1988 dissent by the late Antonin Scalia that is beloved by conservatives.
Francisco, Martinez said, “has basically told you that they’re going to keep litigating to knock down every single one of the restrictions, and that includes the limits on donors to candidates directly.” Martinez continued to lay out this dark future: “It’s going to leave the donor with the ability to give infinite money to the party… and then the party can make unlimited coordinated expenditures—which, by the way, aren’t just about speech. It’s paying the electric bill, it’s paying the florist bill, it’s paying the pizza bill. It’s any expense that the campaign wants.”
The Republican majority has a history of aiding the GOP, and this case may become just the next example. But several of the conservative justices were mostly mum on Tuesday, leaving the outcome a little unclear. It’s possible the court could, to avoid the appearance of another win for Republicans ahead of the midterms, dismiss the case on the grounds that the plaintiffs lacked standing. But if the court continues as it has, both in its support for the GOP and its ultra-wealthy benefactors, then they will likely make it easier for the two to work together.
We started down this road with Citizens United, and every few years since, the court’s GOP majority has pushed us closer and closer to a system of election by oligarchs. The rich do not spend billions of dollars on elections out of the goodness of their hearts, but because presidents and representatives will return the favor. We’ve already seen it happen this year. We’re getting pretty close to where this road ends. Whether or not this case takes us another mile toward an oligarchic free-for-all, we’re already in the bad place.
