Political Spending

The Solicitor General's position aligns with the Institute’s arguments that limits on coordinated political party expenditures violate the First Amendment

This misconception has stubbornly dominated American political thinking for decades. Recent electoral contests have delivered the latest in a series of stunning repudiations of ...

Its amicus brief argues the ruling provides governments a “roadmap to maneuver around the First Amendment”

The Institute’s amicus brief emphasizes how the panel’s decision threatens the First Amendment rights of not just political parties in Kentucky, but all kinds ...

On October 25, 2024, the Institute for Free Speech wrote comments to the New York City Campaign Finance Board expressing concern for the proposed ...

Central Maine Power Company, et al. v. Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices, et al., argued before the First Circuit on October ...

The case known as National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission (NRSC v. FEC) is about the federal limit on “coordinated party expenditures.”

A $92 million war chest and unclear regulations highlight the need for reform to protect political speech.

The Institute’s brief explains that the law violates the First Amendment by banning political speech from American companies mislabeled as "foreign-government influenced"

The Institute’s brief explains that the law violates the First Amendment by banning political speech from American companies mislabeled as "foreign-government influenced"