#SCOTUS justices on Tuesday probed the legality of longstanding #CampaignFinance restrictions challenged by VP #JDVance that limit how much national party committees can spend in coordination with individual candidates.

It is unclear exactly how the court will rule. One lawyer defending the limits argued that the case should be dismissed as moot because of Vance's ongoing reluctance to reveal whether he will run for office in 2028.

#law #ActivistCourt #Trump #judiciary #ElectionInterference

#SCOTUS’ conservative majority has long been skeptical of #CampaignFinance restrictions on “free speech” grounds, & #Republicans have often brought challenges against them. Some of those justices expressed skepticism about the limits during Tuesday's argument, while liberal justices defended them.

#law #ActivistCourt #PartisanCourt #Trump #ElectionInterference #FederalistSociety #HeritageFoundation #judiciary #CitizensUnited #DarkMoney

Hanging over the hearing was the legacy of #SCOTUS’ wave of rulings that have pared back #CampaignFinance restrictions over the years, including the 2010 #CitizensUnited v. FEC decision, which paved the way for unlimited independent expenditures by outside groups known as #superPACs.

#law #ActivistCourt #PartisanCourt #Trump #ElectionInterference #FederalistSociety #HeritageFoundation #judiciary #CitizensUnited #DarkMoney

Follow

@Nonilex

No, that's not what did, though there is so much misinformation about the ruling.

In the ruling, unlimited expenditures was part of what was asked for, the SCOTUS refused, putting limits at the core of the ruling it handed down.

These stories of unlimited power handed to corporations are just sensationalized clickbait. They don't reflect what the ruling actually said, often getting it exactly backwards.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.