Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Supreme Court continues to chip away at campaign finance laws

Sen. Ted Cruz and Judge Amy Coney Barrett
Sen. Ted Cruz meets with Judge Amy Coney Barrett prior to her Supreme Court confirmation hearings in 2020. Barrett joined the majority that ruled in Cruz's favor Monday.
Pool/Getty Images

On Monday, the Supreme Court struck down a federal anti-bribery law, with the conservative majority saying the restrictions imposed by Congress constitute a violation of candidates’ First Amendment right to free speech.

This case, known as FEC v. Ted Cruz for Senate, opens the door for candidates to raise unlimited sums after an election ends in order to repay personal loans to their campaigns. In 2001, Congress capped the amount that can be repaid to candidates using post-election fundraising at $250,000 to prevent wealthy individuals and lobbyists from essentially giving money to lawmakers, including some who profited off the loans by charging their own campaigns interest.

The Supreme Court has a mixed history in its rulings on campaign finance cases. While the court has upheld some of the basic underpinnings of election law, it has also ripped up others. While spending on political campaigns has exploded, advocacy groups have stepped up their efforts to achieve further reforms in the name of fighting corruption.

According to the court tracker Oyez, the Supreme Court has handled nearly 30 cases related to campaign finance since 1957. Here are some of the most influential decisions that have either bolstered the rules or tossed them in the trash.


Buckley v. Valeo (1976)

In 1971, Congress passed the Federal Election Campaign Act, a post-Watergate law putting into place many of the modern regulations governing campaign financing, including contribution limits and reporting requirements.

Five years later, the Supreme Court considered whether the restrictions imposed by FECA violated the First Amendment, issuing a divided ruling.

The justices decided that capping an individual’s contributions to political campaigns and candidates "served the government's interest in safeguarding the integrity of elections” and therefore did not run afoul of the Constitution. However, any limits on spending by campaigns violates the freedoms of speech and association.

The decision served another purpose, dividing political advertising into “express advocacy,” which explicitly endorses or opposes candidates for office, and “issue advocacy,” which addresses issues rather than candidates. The court rules that independent ads that fall into the express advocacy category are subject to federal disclosure requirements, but issue advocacy spending is exempt.

Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC (2000)

The 1976 Buckley decision permitted the government, through the Federal Election Commission, to set caps on donations to federal campaigns. Twenty-four years later, the court addressed donation limits in state campaigns, permitting Missouri to institute a cap of its own.

McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003)

In 2002, Congress passed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which banned soft money, unregulated donations to political organizations for “party building” activities rather than candidate advocacy.

The Supreme Court upheld BCRA, determining there was a link between large, soft-money donations and corruption, or at least the appearance of corruption.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010)

This is the case most often cited by advocates for greater regulation of campaign financing who believe it has opened the floodgates for corruption.

In addition to barring soft money, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act prohibited campaigns from running ads mentioning candidates on broadcast, cable and satellite services within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election.

The FEC, under the guidance of the BCRA, prevented the conservative advocacy nonprofit Citizens United from running an anti-Hillary Clinton movie during the 2008 campaign.

After upholding part of BCRA in 2003, the court struck down this restriction, ruling that the First Amendment allows corporate funding of independent political broadcasts. The justices did leave intact a provision that requires electioneering communication to include disclaimers and disclosure of sponsors.

The Citizens United ruling would be applied to another case that same year. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the caps on individuals’ contribution to super PACs, politically active not-for-profits, unions and other groups that make independent expenditures.

McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission (2014)

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act faced yet another challenge in 2014. That law set a total limit that individuals may give to candidates, parties and political action committees in each two-year election cycle.

While leaving intact the limits on donations to each campaign, party or committee, the Supreme Court struck down the aggregate limits, saying those caps do not prevent corruption and are unconstitutional.

Wealthy individuals may now donate unlimited sums to political organizations, and the ruling paved the way for the creation of joint fundraising committees, through which campaigns and parties raise money together and split the proceeds.

This ruling opened up opportunities for wealthy donors to give to as many political entities as they want. It also led to the creation of joint fundraising committees — partnerships in which campaigns and party committees collect one large check from each donor and split the proceeds.

Read More

Understanding the Debate on Health Secretary Kennedy’s Vaccine Panelists

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., January 29, 2025 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Chen Mengtong/China News Service/VCG via Getty Images)

Understanding the Debate on Health Secretary Kennedy’s Vaccine Panelists

Summary

On June 9, 2025, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), dismissed all 17 members of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). Secretary Kennedy claimed the move was necessary to eliminate “conflicts of interest” and restore public trust in vaccines, which he argued had been compromised by the influence of pharmaceutical companies. However, this decision strays from precedent and has drawn significant criticism from medical experts and public health officials across the country. Some argue that this shake-up undermines scientific independence and opens the door to politicized decision-making in vaccine policy.

Background: What Is ACIP?

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) is a federal advisory group that helps guide national vaccine policy. Established in 1964, it has over 60 years of credibility as an evidence-based body of medical and scientific experts. ACIP makes official recommendations on vaccine schedules for both children and adults, determining which immunizations are required for school entry, covered by health insurance, and prioritized in public health programs. The committee is composed of specialists in immunology, epidemiology, pediatrics, infectious disease, and public health, all of whom are vetted for scientific rigor and ethical standards. ACIP’s guidance holds national weight, shaping both public perception of vaccines and the policies of institutions like schools, hospitals, and insurers.

Keep ReadingShow less
MQ-9 Predator Drones Hunt Migrants at the Border
Way into future, RPA Airmen participate in Red Flag 16-2 > Creech ...

MQ-9 Predator Drones Hunt Migrants at the Border

FT HUACHUCA, Ariz. - Inside a windowless and dark shipping container turned into a high-tech surveillance command center, two analysts peered at their own set of six screens that showed data coming in from an MQ-9 Predator B drone. Both were looking for two adults and a child who had crossed the U.S.-Mexico border and had fled when a Border Patrol agent approached in a truck.

Inside the drone hangar on the other side of the Fort Huachuca base sat another former shipping container, this one occupied by a drone pilot and a camera operator who pivoted the drone's camera to scan nine square miles of shrubs and saguaros for the migrants. Like the command center, the onetime shipping container was dark, lit only by the glow of the computer screens.

Keep ReadingShow less
A Trump 2020 flag outside of a home.

As Trump’s second presidency unfolds, rural America—the foundation of his 2024 election win—is feeling the sting. From collapsing export markets to cuts in healthcare and infrastructure, those very voters are losing faith.

Getty Images, ablokhin

Trump’s 2.0 Actions Have Harmed Rural America Who Voted for Him

Daryl Royal, the 20-year University of Texas football coach, once said, “You've gotta dance with them that brung ya.” The modern adaptation of that quote is “you gotta dance with the one who brought you to the party.” The expression means you should remain loyal to the people or things that helped you succeed.

Sixty-three percent of America’s 3,144 counties are predominantly rural, and Donald Trump won 93 percent of those counties in 2024. Analyses show that rural counties have become increasingly solid Republican, and Trump’s margin of victory within rural America reached a new high in the 2024 election.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hands Off Our Elections: States and Congress, Not Presidents, Set the Rules
white concrete dome museum

Hands Off Our Elections: States and Congress, Not Presidents, Set the Rules

Trust in elections is fragile – and once lost, it is extraordinarily difficult to rebuild. While Democrats and Republicans disagree on many election policies, there is broad bipartisan agreement on one point: executive branch interference in elections undermines the constitutional authority of states and Congress to determine how elections are run.

Recent executive branch actions threaten to upend this constitutional balance, and Congress must act before it’s too late. To be clear – this is not just about the current president. Keeping the executive branch out of elections is a crucial safeguard against power grabs by any future president, Democrat or Republican.

Keep ReadingShow less