GOP Asks Supreme Court for Cheaper TV Ads

The Republican committees told the court they had "budgeted tens of millions of dollars in ad buys under these rules," and that because of the appeals court decision "broadcast stations are already rescinding those rates."

They also argued the courts had no business hearing the case yet — that the FCC's interpretive guidance was "neither agency action, nor final," and that a Democratic appeal is still pending at the FCC itself.

On the harm question, the Republicans wrote: "That respondents can't leverage a statutory benefit as effectively as their opponents does not mean the benefit injures them, much less irreparably injures them."

Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the justices the FCC notice hurts no one because it applies to everybody: "The notice does not grant favored treatment to one side or the other; instead, the notice's interpretation offers the same benefit to all sides, including the challengers themselves and the committees and parties supporting them."

Writing for the 4th Circuit majority, Judge Robert King, a Clinton appointee, was blunt: "The term 'candidate' means 'candidate.'"

Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, a veteran conservative named by Ronald Reagan, dissented, calling the ruling an "assault" on the tradition of party-candidate collaboration. "Congress cannot dangle lower rates for some candidate speech as a means of penalizing other candidate speech," he wrote. He added: "In an odd way, democratic speech needs both the party and the maverick."

The Democratic House and Senate campaign committees called the 4th Circuit ruling a major blow to Republicans and said in a statement that "Democratic candidates' strong grassroots fundraising amplifying the voice of everyday Americans remains a fundamental advantage in the midterms, and our stronger candidates and better campaigns will secure us House and Senate majorities in November."