USA TODAY: “Former Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin, who authored other campaign finance rules that have been partially overturned by the Supreme Court, wrote in a brief for the case that getting rid of the coordinated spending limits would be ‘the next step in the march toward allowing unlimited money to swamp American elections and drown out the will of the voters.’”
MADISON, Wis. – In case you missed it, USA Today previewed tomorrow’s arguments in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) v. Federal Election Commission, a case which could dismantle federal contribution limits, similar to changes that have fueled unprecedented spending in Wisconsin elections.
Law Forward previously filed an amicus brief in the case on behalf of former U.S. Senator Russ Feingold. The brief uses Wisconsin as a case study, detailing how the state’s elimination of contribution limits to political parties and coordinated spending restrictions since 2015 has led to a flood of money that effectively renders candidate contribution limits meaningless. Recent Wisconsin gubernatorial and Supreme Court elections have shattered fundraising records, with tens of millions of dollars transferred from state parties to candidate committees.
“Wisconsin’s experience shows exactly what happens when we eliminate these crucial guardrails,” said Jeff Mandell, Law Forward President and General Counsel. “Wealthy donors can essentially buy unlimited access and influence by routing massive contributions through political parties. This isn’t about partisan politics—it’s about preserving a democracy where average citizens’ voices aren’t drowned out by billionaires’ checkbooks.”
USA Today: Supreme Court could topple yet another campaign finance limit
[Maureen Groppe, 12/7/25]
- The Supreme Court could eliminate one of the remaining checks on money in politics in a case that worries advocates fighting the influence of deep-pocketed donors.
- In a challenge involving Vice President JD Vance, the court will consider on Dec. 9 the Republican Party’s argument for overturning a 2001 decision that upheld a rule aimed at preventing wealthy donors from bypassing limits on what they can give candidates by funneling money through political parties.
- Since that 5-4 decision, the court has become more conservative. And campaign finance law has changed, both by Congress and through other Supreme Court rulings striking down various rules as improper restrictions on “political speech” under the First Amendment.
- Former Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin, who authored other campaign finance rules that have been partially overturned by the Supreme Court, wrote in a brief for the case that getting rid of the coordinated spending limits would be “the next step in the march toward allowing unlimited money to swamp American elections and drown out the will of the voters.”
- The coordinated spending restrictions at issue were included in campaign finance regulations passed by Congress in 1974 in response to the Watergate scandal.
- In a landmark 1976 decision about the entire campaign finance law, the Supreme Court said limiting some types of campaign expenditures improperly restricts speech. But the court said Congress could restrict campaign contributions if done to prevent corruption or the appearance of corruption.
