Context:

The Supreme Court is set to review a Republican-led initiative, supported by the Trump administration, aiming to abolish limits on political party spending in coordination with congressional and presidential candidates. This review challenges a federal election law over 50 years old, which has previously been upheld by the Supreme Court in 2001, but recent conservative rulings, such as the 2010 Citizens United decision, have already dismantled various campaign finance restrictions. Eliminating these limits could allow large donors to bypass individual contribution caps by channeling funds through political parties, potentially increasing corruption and inequality. The Justice Department, departing from its usual practice of defending federal laws, argues this case is an exception due to perceived First Amendment violations. The Supreme Court will also address a separate case involving Cox Communications and record labels over liability for illegal music downloads by its customers, with a previous ruling against Cox overturned by an appellate court.

Dive Deeper:

• The Supreme Court will review a Republican initiative to eliminate limits on party spending coordinated with congressional and presidential candidates, a move backed by the Trump administration. This legal challenge targets a longstanding provision of federal election law that the Supreme Court upheld in 2001, despite recent conservative shifts in campaign finance rulings.

• If the limits are removed, large donors could circumvent individual contribution caps by directing funds to political parties with the understanding that these will be spent on specific candidates, potentially heightening corruption and inequality in political financing.

• Election law expert Richard Hasen anticipates the court will strike down these spending limits, citing the influence of super PACs, which have already weakened political parties and exacerbated corruption and inequality.

• The Trump administration's unusual stance against defending the federal law in court stems from its belief that the law infringes on free-speech protections under the First Amendment, marking a rare departure from the Justice Department's typical approach.

• The Supreme Court will also consider a case involving Cox Communications and record labels over illegal music downloads, where a previous billion-dollar liability against Cox was overturned by an appellate court, with the high court declining to restore the award.