December 9, 2025
Big money and politics. The two – are like this.
But we’ve all see how in recent years — when big money, dark money, corporate money and PAC money get involved… politics shifts. All of a sudden it’s doesn’t feel like the politician is working for their constituent anymore and– instead – it feels like the politician is working for those big donors. Right? You know what I’m talking about.
Well now the Supreme Court is going to decide whether some of those rules that separate the politician from the big money should be thrown out. The justices heard more than two hours of oral arguments today in a case that could change everything. And here’s the kicker – one of the politicians who wants to have the rules thrown out – is none other than vice president JD Vance. And he is going to become veeeeeeery important to this story in a second…so hang on.
The case is called National Republican Senatorial Committee vs. Federal Election Commission. One of the plaintiffs was then senator JD Vance who first brought this lawsuit back in 2022. So what’s the problem? Well – Vance and other Republicans who are suing say their first amendment rights are being violated because there’s a campaign finance law that says it’s ok for the republican and democratic party and groups that are affiliated with the parties to accept millions and millions dollars in donations from big money donors and corporations to support that party platform or even support a specific political candidate. But the rule limits how much those parties can coordinate the spending of all that money with the candidate. It’s a limit that supposed to keep those big money donors and corporate money at arm’s length from the candidate. But what the Republicans are arguing is – there should be no limitation at all and the fact there is a limitation on that coordination — that’s a violation of the candidate’s first amendment rights. They believe those candidates should be allowed to coordinate to their heart’s content with the parties and groups that are collecting hundreds of millions of dollars so they be involved in how, and when advertisements are place and what exactly is said.
So – for example – right now campaign finance laws say an individual can donate a maximum of $3500 to a specific candidate’s campaign per election year. $3500 is a lot of money right? But that same individual donor can send a donation of more than $44,000 to national party committees – that bears same specific candidate’s name on it. And right now – the law says there is a limit on how much coordination can happen between those national parties and party committees and the candidate. Again – so in theory the candidate is kept at arm’s length from that $44,000 donor. But if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the Republicans all bets are off and there will be no limit to the coordination that can happen between that donor and the candidate.
What’s interesting about this case is the Trump administration refused to defend the law that limits the coordination in front of the supreme court today. So – instead the Supreme Court had to appoint a lawyer to argue why the justices should uphold the limitations. The Democrats also stepped in to argue the same position – that the law that limits coordination should be upheld.
It’s also worth noting that the future of JD Vance’s political career was also a topic of conversation during today’s oral arguments. The lawyer appointed to convince the justices to keep the coordination limits in place argued that they should throw the case out because JD Vance – the plaintiff – hasn’t declared whether he’s going to be a candidate again in 2028 — therefore he has no business bringing this case in the first place.
Now – it’s unclear how the justices are going to rule in this case. But we’re going to find out probably at the end of the term in June. Just in time – for the midterm elections.
Listen to oral arguments here.
FEC rules for individual donors here.
FEC rules for coordination limits here.
