WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, a case in which the Court considered whether to strike down a law that limits the amount of money a national political party committee may spend in coordination with federal candidates for elected office, Constitutional Accountability Center Senior Appellate Counsel Miriam Becker-Cohen issued the following reaction:

Enacted to stem corruption in government, the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) has at its foundation a series of limits on the amount of money that individuals, political parties, and organizations can contribute to federal candidates for elected office. Recognizing that paying a candidate’s bills is as good as handing over cash, those limits also apply to expenditures coordinated with candidates for federal office. National political party committees enjoy an exception to that rule—a higher cap that allows for more coordinated spending. But today, even that modest limitation proved too much for the Roberts Court’s conservative supermajority.

Bent on destroying what Justice Kagan in dissent called the “remnant of a remnant” of our nation’s campaign finance laws, the majority today reached out to overturn its own precedent upholding the very same provision of FECA just two decades ago. This is no surprise: the Roberts Court has shown little regard for principles of stare decisis, and the realm of campaign finance is no exception.

Today’s decision does not just undermine precedent—it undermines foundational democratic values, including the layered protections against corruption that the Founding generation included in our Constitution. Perhaps worst of all, it undermines the separation of powers, as the Court seizes for itself the authority to meddle in the realm of congressional policymaking.

CAC’S Director of the Human Rights, Civil Rights, and Citizenship Program David Gans continued:

Our Constitution’s text, history, and values demand an inclusive democracy, but the Supreme Court, under the leadership of Chief Justice John Roberts, has butchered the Constitution’s democratic promise. In case after case, the Roberts Court has made it harder for marginalized communities to enjoy an equal right to vote, as it did in Callais, while making it easier for corporations and the wealthiest of Americans to spend unlimited sums to buy political influence and access, corrupting the promise of government by the people.

Today’s decision once again strikes down a key piece of federal campaign finance law designed to limit opportunities for corruption, opening the door to new ways for the wealthiest Americans to elect politicians beholden to them. Justice Kavanaugh’s majority opinion insists that constitutional text and history demand this result, but there is no historical basis for the idea that the Constitution demands a system of unregulated campaign finance. The Roberts Court has invented this idea, turning a blind eye to the constitutional imperative of preventing both corruption and the appearance of corruption in government.