WASHINGTON- The Supreme Court sided with Republicans on Wednesday and granted political parties and their fundraising committees lower rates for broadcast campaign ads.
Despite two dissents, the justices granted an expedited appeal from the Trump administration and the National Republican Congressional Committee and upheld the use of the Republican-friendly rule in the midterm elections.
In a brief order, the court said the issue should be left to the Federal Communications Commission.
The result gave Republican candidates an advertising advantage in the final weeks of the campaign.
Federal law states that a “legally qualified candidate” running for office is entitled to a “lower unit fee” for campaign advertisements in the 60 days before an election.
However, on March 30, the Republican-controlled FCC announced that broadcasters must extend discounted rates to political parties and their joint fundraising committees.
The FCC notice did not explain the basis for this change and declined to hold a commission hearing to discuss the issue.
But the change was seen as benefiting Republicans.
Democratic candidates raised more money through direct but limited contributions from individuals, while Republicans raised far more money through party committees funded by wealthy donors.
The nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center said the FCC rule change was “contrary to the text and purpose of federal law and would effectively grant super PACs an advertising rebate.”
Anna Gomez, the FCC’s lone Democrat, released a statement opposing the change.
“The American public should not have sweeping changes to election year rules imposed on them in the dark, on the eve of the election, without a single opportunity for public participation,” she said.
Democratic Senate candidates Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Jon Ossoff of Georgia and Roy Cooper of North Carolina opposed the FCC rule change in April and called for a review.
When no action was taken, they filed a complaint in Federal Court. They argued that the FCC did not have the authority to change the law that only gave candidates, not fundraising committees, the benefit of lower advertising rates.
Since then, both sides have gone back and forth in court, each accusing the other of seeking late changes to the rules.
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia sided with Democrats in two 2-1 decisions.
“Suffice it to say that any ‘chaos’ is the FCC’s fault, not ours,” Clinton appointee Judge Robert B. King said Oct. 7. She “sought to create from scratch a new rule entirely outside of judicial review.”
But the Supreme Court intervened twice to overturn the 4th Circuit and agree with the Republicans.
In an unsigned Sept. 4 order, the court said the 4th Circuit intervened too soon. The law “makes it clear that an aggrieved party must wait until the Commission has resolved its request for review by order before filing a petition for judicial review.”
Only Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.
In September, the FCC did nothing other than request public comment on the March rule change.
Frustrated by the delay, the 4th Circuit issued a second order requiring the FCC to act by October 9.
Last week, in response to an appeal from Attorney General D. John Sauer, Chief Judge John G. Roberts stayed the 4th Circuit’s order.
On Wednesday, the full court said the 4th Circuit Court should have left the issue to the FCC.
“Our system of separation of powers does not permit the judiciary to interfere in this manner with the operation of a coordinated branch of government,” the court said in an unsigned opinion.
In dissent, Jackson and Justice Sonia Sotomayor voted to reject the administration’s appeal.
Gn headline
