Supreme Court Lifts Spending Limits on Political Parties and Candidates

submitted by
edited

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/30/us/supreme-court-campaign-finance.html?unlocked_article_code=1.uFA.o7Gz.NXCX_GvixB1W

16
150
1

Log in to comment

Hot Top New Old

This is just what our politics needed!

 reply
53
edited

more money, more bribery, longer campaigns, more ads, whoopeee! Nobody but billionaires and their political lapdogs want this! hoorayy!

 reply
13
[deleted]
edited

Deleted by author

 reply
1

Many of them voted for gun rights and had no idea about the rest. If only they knew they already had gun rights.

 reply
1

There were limits before?

 reply
17

Kind of. The PAC could spend as much money as it wanted, but it couldn’t give above a certain amount directly to the candidate. Which they took issue with now because the candidate themselves gets a discounted rate for ad buys and the Democrats were getting more and more of their money from small dollar donations.

So the Republican PACs would spend say 100m and get the same amount of ads a Democratic candidate could buy with like 25m (those almost certainly aren’t the actual numbers, idk the actual discounted rate the candidates actually get. That’s just an example to illustrate the concept)

 reply
17

I see. Fascists gonna fasc, I suppose.

 reply
6

Why would TV stations give the candidate a discounted rate over a pac?

 reply
1
edited

It’s part of the FCC guidelines. It’s called the Lowest Unit Charge Rule, and it says that for the 45 days before a Primary and 60 days before a General Election TV broadcasters and radio stations must offer qualified political candidates the lowest rate they can possibly offer to an entity for a similar slot.

It’s meant to be so a station can’t like play favorites and charge one candidate a much higher rate than the other. Thereby putting their thumb on the scale for the candidate they give the cheaper rate to. The guidelines just only apply to the candidate directly and not to private ads done on behalf of the candidate.

 reply
5

This timeline is great…

 reply
6

Well the mask has been off for some time now, why the fuck not.

 reply
6

Sure, yea, like it was a taboo before. Nothing new here.

 reply
5

Won’t let me read the article because it “suspects I’m a robot.”

jesus fucking christ do I despise you, new york times.

 reply
4

I’m sure only good things will come of this.

 reply
2

Comments in New York Times gift articles@sopuli.xyz

Not sure I understand, but isn’t it pretty much the case with super PACs already? The article only mentions the difference in advertising rates.

 reply
2

Yes and no. Yes it is the case the those PACs can spend basically infinite money, but the “problem” for them is the actual candidate gets a discount when buying ads and they weren’t “allowed” to coordinate with the candidate.

So what was basically happening is that Republicans were kind of losing the money war at times because their PACs were having to pay more per ad while the Democrats which more and more of their money was being made up by small dollar donations were able to just keep buying discounted ads.

So this decision says to those PACs that now they can just give unlimited money to the candidate and the candidate can buy the discounted ads. Because idk making the PAC pay more was restricting their freedom of speech or some such bullshit.

 reply
5
Insert image