The Supreme Court will hear arguments Tuesday in a campaign finance case that could affect elections for years to come — including in Nevada.

The question at hand in National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission is whether limits on coordinated party expenditures — the money political parties spend in conjunction with their candidates, which is separate from what they give to them — violate the First Amendment. 

The result could reshape party spending ahead of the midterms, potentially boosting Republicans’ odds of ousting Nevada’s House Democrats and their chances of winning Silver State Senate seats in the years to come. Here’s what to know. 

Why are Democrats and Republicans so divided on the case?

The case, originally filed by then-Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) and another candidate, has divided the parties. Leading the challenge alongside the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) is the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), which works to elect Republicans to the House including in Nevada. Other Republican committees, party leaders, and think tanks aligned with President Donald Trump support overturning the limits. 

Meanwhile, the Democratic National Committee, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee intervened to defend the limits after the Trump administration declined to do so. Democratic power lawyer Marc Elias is arguing the case in addition to a court-appointed attorney. 

At first glance, it might not make sense why the parties are split. Democrats and Republicans should theoretically benefit from being able to spend more in coordination with their candidates. In Nevada, campaign finance data shows that both parties frequently spend up to the limits, which are set by federal law and adjusted for inflation, in competitive races.

But that isn’t the whole story. For one, the case illustrates the parties’ longstanding philosophical differences when it comes to campaign finance. 

“I think that ideologically, there’s more of a libertarian strain in the Republican Party, and that therefore, they are sort of philosophically opposed to these limits,” said David Kolker, senior counsel for campaign finance at the Campaign Legal Center (CLC), which backs the limits. 

For another, the coordinated spending makes up just a tiny fraction of total spending in these races, making the larger financial landscape a much bigger factor. Candidates themselves spend far, far more. And after Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission unleashed unlimited independent spending from outside groups (that is, outside spending not coordinated with candidates) much of the money in politics began flowing through super PACs. Nevada’s recent Senate races illustrate this particularly well. 

Some experts, such as Kenneth Miller, an assistant professor of political science at UNLV, say the coordinated spending limits have become moot given that outside groups can often tell what messaging candidates want them to put out by reading signals from campaign website issue pages and by understanding basic strategy.

“The flat reality is that they are highly cooperative with the candidates,” Miller told The Indy. “This distinction of no direct coordination has been rendered meaningless by campaign practices over the last decade.”

But party operatives told The Indy that the limits do matter to them, causing them to silo their efforts and sometimes leading them to run ads that don’t fit candidate preferences. If the limits are overturned, parties could more freely pay for candidates’ campaign managers and cover other kinds of expenses. 

Across the country, and in Nevada specifically, that change would likely boost Republicans. 

How would overturning the limits affect elections?

Campaign finance experts and operatives on both sides told The Nevada Independent that the Republican petitioners are likely to prevail in court, opening the floodgates to a wave of coordinated spending that could have outsized impacts in Nevada in particular. 

In Nevada, Democrats currently hold all the competitive House and Senate seats.

“Many regulations of campaigns protect incumbents,” said Dan Greenberg, a legal fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, which has filed a brief in support of overturning the limits. “And I would say that it is probably true that this particular one has the consequence of protecting incumbents. … Incumbents intrinsically have more power to get their message out because they use official resources, whereas challengers do not have those kinds of avenues available.”

Incumbents also tend to have a big money advantage, and that’s borne out when comparing recent candidate spending in the House and Senate races. 

In the most recent Senate elections, the Democratic candidates outspent their GOP opponents by millions, and sometimes tens of millions, of dollars. The battleground House races in Nevada mirror that dynamic on a smaller scale, especially in the most competitive races: the 1st, 3rd, and 4th Congressional Districts. (In the safely Republican 2nd District, on the other hand, Rep. Mark Amodei (R-NV) has vastly outspent his opponents.)

Nationally, eliminating the limits could help the GOP overcome Democrats’ small-dollar donor edge by leveraging their support from megadonors as wealthy Democrats tighten their belts. 

“Republicans are more dependent on megadonors than Democrats are right now,” UNLV’s Miller said. “Now, if that situation were to flip some years later, then you would find these parties on the opposite side. So this is strategic thinking on their part.”

After trailing Democrats in cumulative fundraising for the past few election cycles, Republicans’ three party fundraising committees have together outraised their opponents this year by nearly $30 million. 

“I think that the whole point of what the Republicans are trying to do here is allow their national party committees to bankroll their campaigns, because their campaigns are having a money problem, and the Republicans have been trying to navigate that for years,” said Rachel Jacobs, an Elias Law Group partner who serves as the DCCC’s general counsel. 

That money could go especially far on TV ads in Nevada. Unlimited coordinated expenditures would allow the parties to take advantage of the candidate rate for TV ad spending, which is lower than the rate for outside groups. Nevada is often the state with the biggest disparity between the two rates, GOP operatives familiar with the case told The Indy, making the Silver State one of the places where the ruling could boost Republicans the most. 

“This is a defining case for protected political speech, and we’re confident the Court will get it right,” NRCC General Counsel Ryan Dollar wrote in a statement to The Nevada Independent.

How could scrapping the limits increase corruption?

But some campaign finance experts worry such a decision could open the door to quid pro quo arrangements that would see wealthy donors funnel huge sums to candidates through the parties, then ask the politicians to pay them back by supporting their preferred policies — or lead to challenges on other limits on money in politics.

“What potentially could get even worse is the use of these so-called joint fundraising committees,” CLC’s Kolker said.  

These committees, formed by multiple smaller committees, allow a donor to write one large check by combining the contribution limits for each of the participants. Often, joint fundraising committees are headlined by a named politician. 

Without coordinated spending limits, Kolker said, donors could further abuse these committees by signalling who they want their spending to benefit, then having parties funnel thousands of dollars back to their preferred candidates. 

Republicans and their allies dismiss such concerns.

“It’s really hard to see how writing a check to the Democratic National Committee is going to corrupt a public official,” said Cato’s Greenberg. “I think that that's a kind of fantastical theory. It just strikes me as very improbable.” 

Critics of the coordinated spending limits note a dearth of bribery scandals, including in state-level races that don’t currently have party spending limits in place. Proponents say that the potential for corruption is self-evident, and specific allegations are hard to prove. 

For now, contribution limits curtail just how much influence donors can buy. But some campaign finance experts also warned the justices’ decision could just be the beginning.

“I think if the court strikes this down, you could see people coming up and asking the court, ‘What about us?’ ‘What about us?’ ‘What about us?’” Jacobs said. “But I think that right now, that question isn’t before the court.”