Have Republicans been given a major midterms boost by the Supreme Court?

**Anthony Zurcher** (0:00)
Hello, it's Anthony, and you're about to hear Americast, and we're delighted to have you with us. And if you enjoy what you hear, please do consider subscribing to the podcast. That way, you'll never miss an episode. Now, on with today.

**Justin Webb** (0:13)
The big week of Supreme Court rulings just got bigger. The court ruling on Tuesday, that political parties in the United States can spend as much as they want on campaign. So the ruling removes limits on coordinated spending between candidates and political parties. It's fundamentally going to change how money is spent, particularly in congressional elections. And there are, as you know, some congressional elections not far away. So Donald Trump says it's a big win for Republicans. He said that in capital letters and more importantly, the First Amendment that guarantees freedom of speech. So are we about to see an influx of money into the midterm elections? Could it actually swing the pendulum back towards the Republican Party? Welcome to Americast.
Americast.

**SPEAKER_5** (1:00)
Americast from BBC News.

**Justin Webb** (1:03)
You hear that sound?

**Anthony Zurcher** (1:05)
I think when I hear that sound, it reminds me of money.

**SPEAKER_6** (1:07)
We didn't start this war, but under President Trump, we are finishing it. This is a big cover-up and this administration is engaged in it.

**Justin Webb** (1:15)
This guy has Trump Derangement Syndrome.

**Anthony Zurcher** (1:17)
I have four words for you. Turn the volume up.

**Justin Webb** (1:27)
Hello, it's Justin in the Worldwide Headquarters of Americast in London, England.

**Anthony Zurcher** (1:30)
And it's Anthony in the American Headquarters of Americast in Washington, DC.

**Justin Webb** (1:35)
Let us start by talking money, Anthony. This is an important ruling. It's a ruling that changes again the law when it comes to campaign finance. Basically loosens it, doesn't it?
We're used to it being loosened. I think I thought that it couldn't be loosened anymore, actually. A lot of Americasters will think, well, hang on a second, pretty much everyone spends, well, they can get their hands on in campaign. So what does this actually do?

**Anthony Zurcher** (2:00)
Oh my gosh, there's going to be money spent on American political campaigns. It's going to be a wash.
Yeah, I mean, this is kind of the last vestiges of the big campaign finance reform that passed in 2002 And you were around here, Justin, back when that happened, McCain Feingold was the name of the law. John McCain, a Republican, and Russ Feingold, a Democrat, were able to overcome establishment opposition from the Republican Party and Mitch McConnell to put through this massive reform of how campaigns are funded and who can spend money on political advertising, all that. And step by step, the Supreme Court has torn it all down. Citizens United was that big case about 10 years ago that said that independent groups can spend as much money as they want on advocacy and advocating for candidates. This was one of the last pieces left. This was a ban on coordination between political parties and campaigns. So you couldn't give money to a political party and have them essentially give it to a candidate. That was kind of a back door in the view of the people who supported this law that they tried to close. But now the Supreme Court has said, no, that violates the free speech rights of political parties. And so that ban, that lack of coordination that they had to abide by, it is now gone. And I'll say, Justin, it's probably going to give more power to political parties at a time when maybe their influence has waned a little bit. Yeah.

**Justin Webb** (3:22)
And could you say that that in one sense is a good thing. And as much as these political action committees and particularly the super PACs were pretty opaque, weren't they? So as you say, you could give money. So say I'm a billionaire, I give a load of money to a super PAC. Yes, it can't coordinate with a candidate, but it can pretty much lay the groundwork for that guy or gal to win, can't it? So is there a case to be made that says it's just a kind of more transparent way of doing it?

**Anthony Zurcher** (3:52)
Yeah, money finds a way, right? It flows downhill. And super PACs, these political action committees that are independent of political parties and individual candidates, or at least supposedly independent. I mean, every major candidate has a super PAC that with a wink and a nod is supposedly independent. But let's be honest, it's the same people who work on campaigns, go back and forth between the super PACs and the campaigns. They raise money with the understanding, implicit understanding that this money is going to be spent to support a candidate. And they're not, those super PACs are also not supposed to coordinate. That part of the law is still there. But to be honest, they know what they're doing. And maybe they have a conversation off the record over dinner, but they kind of coordinate.