NATIONAL REPUBLICAN SENATORIAL COMMITTEE; NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE; JAMES D. VANCE, Senator; STEVE CHABOT, former Representative v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, et al. - Articles

All Content

NATIONAL REPUBLICAN SENATORIAL COMMITTEE; NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE; JAMES D. VANCE, Senator; STEVE CHABOT, former Representative v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, et al.

Posted by: Azya Thornton on Sep 9, 2024

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Noel J. Francisco, JONES DAY, Washington, D.C., for Appellants.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: Jason X. Hamilton, FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Noel J. Francisco, John M. Gore, E. Stewart Crosland, Brinton Lucas, JONES DAY, Washington, D.C., Sarah Welch, JONES DAY, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellants.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: Jason X. Hamilton, Shaina Ward, Blake L. Weiman, FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

Attorneys 5: ON BRIEF: Charles J. Cooper, Peter A. Patterson, John D. Ohlendorf, COOPER & KIRK, PLLC, Washington, D.C., T. Elliot Gaiser, OFFICE OF THE OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL, Columbus, Ohio, Brett R. Nolan, INSTITUTE FOR FREE SPEECH, Washington, D.C., Tara Malloy, CAMPAIGN LEGAL CENTER, Washington, D.C., for Amici Curiae.

Judge(s): SUTTON, Chief Judge; MOORE, CLAY, GIBBONS, GRIFFIN, KETHLEDGE, STRANCH, THAPAR, BUSH, LARSEN, NALBANDIAN, READLER, MURPHY, DAVIS, MATHIS, and BLOOMEKATZ, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati

SUTTON, Chief Judge. At issue is whether the Federal Election Campaign Act’s limits on coordinated campaign expenditures, which restrict political parties from spending money on campaign advertising with input from the party’s candidate for office, violate the First Amendment. In 2001, the Supreme Court held that they do not. FEC v. Colo. Republican Fed. Campaign Comm., 533 U.S. 431, 465. In this action, the plaintiffs argue that the law and facts have changed since 2001, making the Colorado decision no longer binding on lower courts. The Supreme Court, they point out, has tightened the free-speech restrictions on campaign finance regulations in the last two decades. See, e.g., McCutcheon v. FEC, 572 U.S. 185, 227 (2014) (plurality opinion); id. at 231–32 (Thomas, J., concurring in the judgment); FEC v. Ted Cruz for Senate, 596 U.S. 289, 313 (2022). And since then, they add, the terrain of political fundraising and spending has changed, most notably with 2014 amendments to the Act and with the rise of unlimited spending by political action committees. These are fair points. But none of them gives us authority to overlook or for that matter override the Supreme Court’s decision in this case. The key reality is that the Supreme Court has not overruled the 2001 Colorado decision or the deferential review it applied to these provisions of the Act. In a hierarchical legal system, we must follow that decision and thus must deny the plaintiffs’ First Amendment facial and as- applied challenges.

Attachments: