How A Controversial Gun Rights Decision Could Nuke Campaign Finance Law

Four federal judges appointed by former President Donald Trump and one appointed by former President George W. Bush want to use the same logic powering recent Supreme Court decisions to strip away abortion rights and sharply limit gun control to nuke the nation’s campaign finance system — and a case brought by Republican vice presidential nominee JD Vance might give the Supreme Court a chance to do it.

The long-term implications of what the judges seek — applying an “originalist” history and tradition test based on the purported beliefs of the Founding Fathers to political spending — would likely be the elimination of an already crippled campaign finance system in the United States, with billionaires and corporate interests free to give unlimited sums to candidates more directly than they already do, perhaps with little to no disclosure.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a campaign finance law limiting the amount candidates and parties can spend in coordination with each other in a decision handed down in NRSC v. FEC on Sept. 5. What stood out most was not the court’s majority opinion, but two separate concurrences filed by Trump-appointed judges (with one of them joined by three other GOP-appointed judges) calling for the Supreme Court to make a complete overhaul of campaign finance jurisprudence that would threaten the entirety of existing campaign finance law.

Those arguments could wind up before the Supreme Court soon, as the NRSC intends on appealing the 6th Circuit’s decision.

The case, brought by Vance, former Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) and the Republican Party’s House and Senate campaign arms, seeks to end the long-standing limit on coordinated spending between federal candidates and political parties.