Graham Platner Controversy: Supreme Court Ruling on Campaign Spending Correct

The Supreme Court’s decisions on other hot-button issues may get more headlines — even here at National Review — but few rulings this term are apt to have effects as far-reaching as Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s opinion for a 6–3 majority in National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission. The Court struck down on First Amendment grounds the long-standing campaign finance laws limiting the amount that political parties could spend in coordination with campaigns. The Court’s decision is a logical extension of its First Amendment principles on free speech and association in the campaign context.

The latest Graham Platner controversy shows why the Court’s decision is a good thing. Strengthening the political parties could not come at a better time, after a quarter century of legal, social, and technological developments that have systematically weakened the parties relative to outside groups and direct online small-dollar fundraising. Strong parties are especially useful when the interests of morally bad or mentally feeble candidates conflict not only with the interests of the public but also with the interests of their parties. The NRSC decision fortifies the power that Democrats have to run Platner out of the race. In the long run, we should want both parties to have and exercise that power.

About the Author

Dan McLaughlin

Dan McLaughlin is a senior writer at National Review Online and a fellow at National Review Institute.

Featured Tags

The Supreme Court’s decisions on other hot-button issues may get more headlines — even here at National Review — but few rulings this term are apt to have effects as far-reaching as Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s opinion for a 6–3 majority in National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission. The Court struck down on First Amendment grounds the long-standing campaign finance laws limiting the amount that political parties could spend in coordination with campaigns. The Court’s decision is a logical extension of its First Amendment principles on free speech and association in the campaign context.

The latest Graham Platner controversy shows why the Court’s decision is a good thing. Strengthening the political parties could not come at a better time, after a quarter century of legal, social, and technological developments that have systematically weakened the parties relative to outside groups and direct online small-dollar fundraising. Strong parties are especially useful when the interests of morally bad or mentally feeble candidates conflict not only with the interests of the public but also with the interests of their parties. The NRSC decision fortifies the power that Democrats have to run Platner out of the race. In the long run, we should want both parties to have and exercise that power.