Show Notes
Political parties may soon make a comeback. A new Supreme Court decision “could fundamentally change the equation in American politics,” says Peter Schweizer about a Supreme Court decision on campaign finance.
“This will allow the parties to have more influence and more direction on who their nominees are,” he says.
Why? Because the Supreme Court’s ruling in National Republican Senate Committee v. Federal Elections Commission struck down rules that prevented political parties from coordinating their candidates’ spending directly. Now, political parties will become a more attractive way for donors to give money to a preferred candidate, since the party can help steer how the money is spent.
Political campaigns are already too expensive, as most will agree. Will Rogers once said that “Politics is so expensive that it takes a lot of money just to lose.”
But the real problem, Schweizer says, is more distinct. “With some of the super PACs, if you’re a 501(c)(4), there’s much less transparency. And there is a lot of dark money there.” On this week’s episode of The Drill Down, he and co-host Eric Eggers explain why it matters.
SuperPACs accept a lot of dark money, whose donors are not required to disclose. Since the Citizens United ruling in 2010, PACs and Super PACs have been able to spend unlimited amounts of money on behalf of their candidates. They tend to be sharply ideological and focused on one main political issue.
Parties, of course, tend to support candidates with more broad appeal. The Court’s ruling means parties can directly fund expenses for their chosen candidates in a way that PACs cannot. Donors who contribute to parties, instead of PACS, can see that money put to direct use for their chosen candidate.
This gives political parties an advantage over special-interest PACs, but it also means that candidates who need party funding will have to moderate their stances to appeal to a broader, party audience, rather than seek the dark money from activist SuperPACs.
“I think this ruling is going to be really important as far as transparency is concerned,” Schweizer says. “People can actually now know who the major backers are.”
Schweizer ties this to the recent success of socialist candidates like Zoran Mamdani who are affiliated with the Democratic Socialists of America. “The DSA is not officially a political party. They are, essentially, a faction within the Democratic Party,” Schweizer says. “They are a 501(c)(4), not a political party.”
The same holds true for big-spending billionaires such as George Soros, who made massive contributions on behalf of candidates in statewide races such as district attorneys.
“Soros is a very famous example of someone who spends a lot of money to put his thumb on the scale. He’s largely credited with the rise of the socialist candidates that you’re seeing across the country, but when a voter casts a ballot, they only see the political party next to the candidate’s name,” Schweizer says. “You don’t see who their top donors are, or which super PACs they received money from.”
With those forces pushing the Democratic Party further left, the court’s decision to allow political parties to coordinate “seems more honest,” Schweizer says. “I know that’s a weird thing to say.”
“The very aim of a political party is to influence the candidates,” adds co-host Eric Eggers. “It’s literally their job to get these guys elected.”
Up until the ruling, the dark, undisclosed money has been driving more extreme candidates. And it is growing. “The New York Times found that in 2024, there was one $1.9 billion dollars in dark money that went into the election cycle. Nobody knows who spent it. That is nearly double the previous record of $1 billion in 2020. So, it is trending in that direction.”
With its ruling, the Court has allowed political parties to have a stronger say.
