We will hear argument this morning in case 24-621, National Republican Senatorial Committee

versus the Federal Election Commission.

Mr. Francisco.

Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, the coordinated party spending limits are at war

with this Court's recent First Amendment cases.

The theory is that they're needed to prevent an individual donor from laundering a $44,000

donation through the party to a particular candidate in exchange for official action. But that

Rube Goldberg theory fails for the same reasons this Court rejected it in McCutcheon. First,

it's unlikely to work because the donor has to cede control of his

money to the party committees, which have their own interests. Second, it's already prevented by other

things, including the $44,000 base limit, the earmarking rule, disclosure requirements, and the bribery

laws. And third, there's no need for it, since a would-be

briber would be better off just giving a massive donation to the candidate's favorite

super PAC. That's why no one has identified a single case in which a donor has actually

laundered a bribe to a candidate through a party's coordinated spending, even though 28 states allow it.

All this is why my friend tries so hard to argue that this case is moot. But that fails, too. He has to show

that it is impossible to grant either Vice President Vance or the committee's any effective relief.

But there's no evidence that the Vice President has abandonedance, or the committees, any effective relief. But there's no evidence

that the Vice President has abandoned his intention to run for Federal Office in 2008. To the

contrary, he has an active statement of candidacy, an active Senate campaign committee that's already

raised $50,000 in this year alone, and at least 15 of the last 18

vice presidents have gone on to run for the presidency. And regardless of the current executive's

...