<p class="wp-block-paragraph">A group of Democratic congressional candidates urged the <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/tag/supreme-court/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Supreme Court</a> on Thursday to reject an <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/4701131/gop-appeal-campaign-finance-supreme-court/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">effort</a> by Republican Senate and House campaign committees to halt an appeals court ruling that found coordinated advertisement buys between political parties and joint fundraising committees are not entitled to cheaper candidate rates.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) and the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) filed an emergency petition to the Supreme Court earlier this week, asking the court to halt the order by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit and restore the lower ad buy rates for parties and joint fundraising committees. Lawyers for Democratic Senate candidates Sherrod Brown, Jon Ossoff, and Roy Cooper, along with Democratic House candidate Kristen McDonald Rivet, argued in a filing Thursday that the high court should reject the emergency petition, maintaining the 4th Circuit’s ruling.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The NRSC and NRCC previously achieved a significant ruling at the Supreme Court earlier this year, which allowed unlimited coordinated spending between political parties and candidates, striking down prior limits as violations of the First Amendment.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This ruling was seen as a short-term advantage for the GOP over the Democratic Party, particularly due to the Republican National Committee’s <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/campaigns/congressional/4709812/house-gop-flexes-campaign-cash-advantage-after-supreme-court-ruling/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">significant cash advantage</a> heading into the midterm elections. The 4th Circuit’s ruling, which Republicans are contesting with the emergency petition, was perceived as a key win for Democrats, as Democratic candidates have significantly outraised Republican candidates in several closely watched races despite the Democratic National Committee having less funding than the RNC.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The coalition of Democratic candidates argued to the Supreme Court that federal law permits only legally qualified candidates to purchase ads at the lower rates, excluding political parties and other groups working in coordination with the candidate. They also claimed that the Department of Justice was reversing its previous arguments made before the high court.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Just last year, the Solicitor General assured this Court that this provision ‘require[s] broadcasters to charge low rates for candidate spending, but not for party spending — whether coordinated or independent.’ But three months ago, the Federal Communications Commission’s Media Bureau reversed course and issued a ‘Public Notice’ that instructs broadcasters, under threat of hefty penalties, to offer lowest unit charge to two categories of non-candidate committees: political parties engaged in coordinated expenditures, and joint fundraising committees with non-candidate members,” the lawyers for the Democratic candidates stated.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“The Fourth Circuit correctly held that the Public Notice is contrary to law, and there is no basis for this Court to stay that judgment,” the Democratic candidates’ lawyers added, urging the Supreme Court not to rule in favor of the GOP.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The NRCC and NRSC stated in their petition earlier this week that the appeals court ruling, issued two months before the contentious midterm elections, has disrupted the committees’ campaign spending strategy.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“In the midst of election season, a divided Fourth Circuit panel just rewrote longstanding rules about preferential broadcast rates for political ads. At the behest of Democratic candidates who said those rules favor their electoral opponents, the panel majority blew through two jurisdictional bars to vacate a staff-level public notice that is neither final nor an agency action,” lawyers for the NRCC and NRSC said.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“The order splits with multiple circuits, ‘restrict[s] political speech in the sensitive period leading up to an election,’ and ignores this Court’s recent instruction on agency finality,” the NRCC and NRSC said in their brief, adding that they had already budgeted for ad buys with the cheaper rates.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The Supreme Court does not have a set timeline to issue a ruling on the emergency petition.</p>