How the Supreme Court Helped Democrats

Their losses would have been greater without rulings that protected campaign spending as political free speech

WSJ editorial. 

"Democrats took a pounding last week, but it could have been worse. The party was spared from an even bigger rout by their huge advantage in campaign spending, and for that they can thank their billionaire donors—and the Supreme Court they love to hate.

Kamala Harris raised more than $1 billion and spent more than $900 million, while the Trump campaign raised around $380 million and spent more than $350 million. In swing states Democrats had the edge in campaign spending across the board.

The margin was closest in Pennsylvania, where Democrats spent $109 million to Republicans’ $102 million. In Michigan Democrats spent $81 million to Republicans’ $18 million. In Wisconsin it was $49 million to $15 million, according to AdImpact. Mr. Trump won those states, but more narrowly than his advantage on the issues and the national turn to the right suggest he might have.

So-called independent expenditures outside the campaigns also broke records. Independent spending in all 2024 federal races was some $4.5 billion and flowed through Super Pacs allied with campaign operations, according to OpenSecrets. The Super Pacs in turn were often funded by 501(c)4s and other nonprofit groups, the “dark money” bogeymen of Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse’s nightmares. In key Senate races in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Montana, Arizona and others, independent spending by both sides ran into the tens of millions.

Looking at all federal campaign spending, Democrats beat out Republicans with some $4.5 billion in political ads compared with the GOP’s $3.5 billion. That included ad spending for presidential, congressional and down-ballot races including campaigns and independent spending. Democratic independent groups spent $2.4 billion while Republican independent groups spent $2.2 billion, according to AdImpact.

The great irony is that none of this would have been possible without Supreme Court decisions that have opened the door to more money in elections. McConnell v. FEC in 2003 cracked open the door by allowing political parties to coordinate with candidates and make unlimited independent expenditures. Citizens United v. FEC in 2010 allowed corporations and unions to spend money in elections. The D.C. Circuit’s decision in SpeechNow v. FEC in 2010 unleashed independent spending by Super Pacs.

The Court ruled that the First Amendment protects political speech, and spending on campaigns is a form of speech. If not for these rulings, which Democrats denounce every other day, Republicans would have bigger majorities in Congress. Funny how you don’t hear cries for “campaign finance reform” this year.

What other gifts might the current Supreme Court majority bestow upon Democrats? With Mr. Trump coming back to the White House, the left may learn to love the major questions doctrine, which requires clear direction from Congress on consequential regulations from the executive branch. Democrats raged against that ruling and the Supreme Court’s 6-2 decision striking down Chevron deference in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which will also restrain Mr. Trump’s regulators.

Democrats will never admit it, but the Bush-Trump Justices will spare them from even greater political defeats."