Vice President-elect J.D. Vance and a contingent of Republicans are leading the fight regarding a challenge to campaign finance limits.

According to the Washington Examiner, Vance and several high-profile GOP groups and a former lawmaker are behind the efforts to prove that the campaign finance limits rule is a violation of the First Amendment. 

The outlet reported that according to a petition made public last week, the co-plaintiffs, in addition to Vance, include "the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the National Republican Congressional Committee, and former Ohio Republican Rep. Steve Chabot."

Their primary argument is that parties usually work together to get their candidates across the board elected to office, and current federal limits on how much can be exchanged between candidates and related rules are a violation of rights.

What's going on?

The petition from the group of co-plaintiffs made it clear why they are taking the matter all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"A political party exists to get its candidates elected. Yet Congress has severely restricted how much parties can spend on their own campaign advertising if done in cooperation with those very candidates," the petition read.

It added, "This petition, at its core, asks whether the First Amendment permits the government to ‘restrict political parties from spending money on campaign advertising with input from the party’s candidate for office.’”

Vance, GOP committees ask Supreme Court to strike down coordination limits https://t.co/0vgseYJRSf
"A political party exists to get its candidates elected..." 🤔 Hm. We thought they existed with the sole purpose of seeking to best serving the American people.

— Clayton Stern (@ClaytonStern) December 8, 2024

The Examiner noted:

The plaintiffs argued that the “constitutional violation” had harmed the political system by incentivizing donors to instead funnel their money to super PACs, stripping parties of their power and boosting “political polarization and fragmentation across the board.”

Vance and the other co-plaintiffs reiterated in the petition that they have growing, widespread support for the complaint, especially in the wake of the last election.

Previous ruling

The co-plaintiffs argued that a previous ruling against their cause by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals was only made because the court felt it had no choice.

Chief Judge Jeffrey Sutton explained the ruling last September.

"Even when the Supreme Court embraces a new line of reasoning in a given area and even when that reasoning allegedly undercuts the foundation of a decision, it remains the Court’s job, not ours, to overrule it," he wrote at the time.

Only time will tell if Vance and his co-plaintiffs are ultimately successful. If so, it will radically alter the next campaign cycle.