Oral Argument: NRSC v. FEC | Camaign Finance First Amendment Fight
About this episode
NRSC v. FEC | Money, Messaging, and Muzzling: The First Amendment Fight Over Party Coordination | Argument Date: 12/9/15 | Docket Link: Here
Question Presented: Whether the First Amendment permits limits on the amount of money that the national committee of a political party may contribute to political candidates in the form of coordinated expenditures.
Overview
This oral argument involves National Republican Senatorial Committee versus Federal Election Commission, a landmark campaign finance case that could fundamentally reshape how political parties operate in federal elections, featuring the extraordinary situation where the Federal Election Commission itself now agrees with the challengers that coordinated party expenditure limits violate the First Amendment.
The case centers on limits that cap how much money party committees can spend in coordination with their candidates, creating a constitutional clash over political speech rights and anti-corruption measures. With the government switching sides post-election, the Court appointed an outside lawyer to defend the law while Democratic Party committees intervened to provide the opposition the case desperately needed.
Oral Advocates:
- For Petitioner (NRSC): Noel J. Francisco, Washington, D.C., argued for Petitioners NRSC.
- For Respondents in Support of Petitioners (FEC): Sarah M. Harris, Principal Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, argued in support of NRSC.
- Court-Appointed Amicus Curiae in Support of the Judgment Below: Roman Martinez, Washington, D.C.
- For Intervenor (DNC): Marc E. Elias, Washington, D.C.
Link to Opinion: TBD.
Website Link to Opinion Summary: TBD.
Website Link to Oral Argument: TBD.
Timestamps:
[00:00:00] Oral Argument Preview
[00:02:28] Oral Argument Begins
[00:02:38] Petitioner Opening Statement
[00:04:39] Petitioner Free for All Questions
[00:18:19] Petitioner Round Robin Questions
[00:48:54] United States in Support of Petitioner Opening Statement
[00:50:08] United States Free for All Questions
[01:05:22] United States Round Robin Questions
[01:19:53] Court Appointed Amicus Curiae Opening Statement
[01:22:17] Court Appointed Amicus Curiae Free for All Questions
[01:38:08] Court Appointed Amicus Curiae Round Robin Questions
[01:44:55] DNC As Intervenors Opening Statement
[01:46:17] DNC As Intervenors Free for All Questions
[02:00:05] DNC As Intervenor Round Robin Questions
[02:09:51] Petitioner Rebuttal
Get every episode summarized
Each time The High Court Report publishes, we email you a written briefing from the transcript — the topics, who appeared, and any specific claims, with the ad reads skipped.
Email me new episodesFree for 3 shows. No card needed.
Hosts & guests
No transcript yet
This episode has not been transcribed. Request it and it moves to the front of the queue.
More episodes
More from The High Court Report
Opinion Summary: Monsanto v. Durnell | Court Axes Roundup Cancer Suits
The High Court Report
Opinion Summary: Mullin v. Doe | No Judge. No TPS. No Way Back.
The High Court Report
New Opinions: June 30th | 3 Blockbusters End the Term
The High Court Report
Opinion Summary: Mullin v. Al Otro Lado | The Inch That Changed Immigration Law
The High Court Report
