Sides

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court sided with Republicans Wednesday and gave political parties and their fundraising committees lower rates for broadcast campaign ads.

Over two dissents, the justices granted a fast-track appeal from the Trump administration and the National Republican Congressional Committee and upheld the use of the GOP-friendly rule in the midterm election.

In a brief order, the court said the issue should be left to the Federal Communications Commission.

The outcome has given Republican candidates an advertising edge in the final weeks of the campaign.

Federal law says a “legally qualified candidate” running for election is entitled to a “lower unit charge” for campaign ads in the 60 days prior to an election.

However, on March 30, the FCC, under Republican control, announced that broadcasters must extend the lower rates to political parties and their joint fundraising committees.

The FCC notice did not explain the basis for this change, and it refused to hold a commission hearing to debate the issue.

But the change was seen as benefiting Republicans.

Democratic candidates have raised more money from direct but limited contributions from individuals, while Republicans have raised far more through party committees that are funded by wealthy donors.

The non-partisan Campaign Legal Center said the FCC’s rule change was “contrary to the text and purpose of the federal statute and would effectively grant super PACs an advertising discount.”

Anna Gomez, the lone Democrat on the FCC, issued a statement objecting to the change.

“The American public should not have sweeping election-year rule changes forced on them in the dark, on the eve of the election, without a single opportunity for public input,” she said.

Democratic Senate candidates Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Jon Ossoff of Georgia and Roy Cooper from North Carolina objected to the FCC rule change in April and and asked for a review.

When no action was taken, they filed suit in federal court. They argued the FCC had no authority to change the law that gave only candidates, not fundraising committees, the benefit of the lower ad rates.

Since then, the two sides have gone back and forth in the courts, with both accusing the other of seeking a late change in the rules.

The U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia ruled for the Democrats in a pair of 2-1 decisions.

“Suffice to say that any ‘chaos’ is the FCC’s fault, not ours,” Judge Robert B. King, a Clinton appointee, said on Oct. 7. It “has endeavored to create from whole cloth a new rule entirely outside the purview of judicial review.”

But the Supreme Court stepped in twice to overturn the 4th Circuit and rule for the Republicans.

In a Sept. 4 order, the court said in an unsigned order the 4th Circuit intervened too soon. The law “makes clear that an aggrieved party must wait for the Commission to resolve its application for review by order before filing a petition for judicial review.”

Only Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.

In September, the FCC did nothing other than to ask for public comments on its March rule change.

Frustrated with the delay, the 4th Circuit issued a second order requiring the FCC to act by Oct. 9.

Last week, in response to an appeal from Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer, Chief Justice John G. Roberts put the 4th Circuit order on hold.

On Wednesday, the full court said the 4th Circuit Court should have left the issue to the FCC.

“Our system of separation of powers does not allow the judiciary to meddle in the workings of a coordinate branch of the government in this manner,” the court said an unsigned opinion.

In dissent, Jackson and Justice Sonia Sotomayor voted to deny the administration’s appeal.

WASHINGTON — California is sometimes described as the ATM of Democratic politics.

That’s certainly been the case in the most divisive Democratic races this year.

Donors from California have given more to far-left candidates and their moderate opponents in congressional races and U.S. Senate contests than donors from any other state — more than $17 million combined, according to a Times analysis of the most recently available campaign finance filings.

More of that money — nearly $11 million — went to more progressive candidates. That giving came from more than 95,000 individual donors, which was more than double the number of California donors who gave to their more moderate opponents. That includes 18,000 donors who gave to both progressive and moderate candidates.

There was a geographic divide in giving by Californians. The largest share of cash to progressive candidates came from donors in the Bay Area, while the largest share of financial backing to moderate candidates came from donors in the Los Angeles area.

The Times looked at competitive races outside California in which one of the candidates had been endorsed by either the Justice Democrats or the Democratic Socialists of America, or DSA, as well as key Senate races in Michigan, Minnesota, Florida and Maine that featured a stark ideological divide between top Democratic contenders.

Although these races represent a small fraction of the electoral contests across the country, they were the races in which the future ideological direction of the Democratic Party was most fiercely contested.

Progressive candidates fared better in the majority of these contests.

California donors helped fund the Senate primary victories of progressives Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan and Peggy Flanagan in Minnesota — second only to in-state donors in providing cash to each of those candidates.

Progressive House candidates such as Melat Kiros in Colorado and Darializa Avila Chevalier in New York were able to defeat more moderate incumbents with heavy support from California donors.

Their efforts weren’t always successful, however.

Former Rep. Cori Bush raked in more cash from California donors than in-state supporters in her bid to unseat incumbent Rep. Wesley Bell in Missouri’s 1st Congressional District, the seat she had held previously. But Bell easily cruised to victory in this year’s primary.

And then there was Graham Platner.

California donors gave nearly $2.5 million to his Senate campaign in Maine before he withdrew after he was accused of sexual assault by a former girlfriend. He has denied the accusation.

The Times analysis looked at direct contributions to campaigns, which are capped at $7,000 per election cycle. It did not include contributions to party committees or independent committees that could also be spending in these races. The analysis included both bigger contributions required to be disclosed by campaigns as well as small-dollar contributions through the Democratic fundraising platform ActBlue.

Flipping the script

Progressive donors said they were motivated to give to candidates who would shake up the Democratic Party’s status quo.

“The Democratic Party has to understand that they can’t keep doing the same thing,” said Rehan Alvi, a real estate investor in El Dorado Hills.

He gave the maximum allowable to support the campaigns of El-Sayed and Bush, and also supported Junaid Ahmed’s failed primary bid in the Illinois 8th Congressional District, as well as Platner’s campaign.

Harry Saddler, a retired designer who lives in San Francisco, said that the state of the party is “enraging.”

“That leads me to think about people who can actually flip the script,” he said.

Joshua Saltman, shown in his Los Angeles home, is one of many Democratic donors from California who have given in divisive Democratic races across the country.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

Saddler has written checks to a number of more progressive candidates, including Flanagan, Chevalier, Ahmed and Nida Allam, who lost her primary bid to unseat incumbent Rep. Valerie Foushee in North Carolina’s 4th Congressional District, though he has also supported some moderate candidates in other races he sees as crucial to Democrats chances at retaking control of one or both chambers of Congress.

That pragmatic approach is part of the reason Joshua Saltman said he has supported a number of moderate candidates.

“The reality of the map is that if Democrats are going to retake the House, it’s not just winning super blue districts,” said Saltman, a former entertainment industry lawyer who now runs a Broadway music festival.

Saltman said that he considers himself to be a more moderate Democrat and is also inclined to give to moderate candidates who he believes “get a little less love” from other donors, particularly in California.

He has written checks to Rep. Haley Stevens, who lost to El-Sayed in Michigan; Rep. Angie Craig, who lost to Flanagan in Minnesota; Bell in Missouri and Gov. Janet Mills in Maine, who was Platner’s main competition in the Democratic primary before dropping out of the race.

Alan Burye, a retired accountant who lives just outside San Diego, said he prefers more moderate candidates because he thinks they are more productive politicians.

“The ones who are out on the edges, like Bernie Sanders, really don’t get much done,” Burye said.

He cut checks to Craig in Minnesota and Stevens in Michigan.

Israel’s impact

American support for Israel — in the wake of wars in Gaza and Iran — has been a major point of division among more progressive and moderate candidates and is a key fault line among many donors.

Progressive candidates have been increasingly critical of the actions and influence of the Israeli government as the public, broadly, has adopted a more negative view of the Israeli government.

Politicians who have drawn support in the past from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, have been a particular target of progressive challengers.

“The problem with the Democratic Party is that they’re all just beholden to AIPAC and to corporate interests,” said Alvi, the real estate investor in El Dorado Hills. “I want a candidate who has the courage to speak.”

In Michigan, El-Sayed described AIPAC’s support of Stevens, his moderate opponent, as “legalized bribery.”

El-Sayed has made no secret of his criticism of American foreign aid for Israel and said that he “doesn’t believe in ethno-states” in response to a question in the summer about whether he supports the right of Israel to exist.

El-Sayed’s comments and similar sentiments expressed by other more progressive candidates are part of the reason some donors have given to moderate candidates.

“I feel that people who fundamentally aren’t big fans of Israel aren’t necessarily people I want to give money to,” said Saltman, who gave to Stevens.

Saltman, who was born in Michigan, said that he would still vote for El-Sayed if he lived in the state.

Other donors said they were inspired to give to moderate candidates because of concern that anti-Israel rhetoric could veer into attacks on Jews more broadly.

Los Angeles investor Steve Emerson said his motivation in writing checks to moderate Democrats such as Stevens is “to fight antisemitism.”

El-Sayed, for his part, said in the summer that his criticism of Israel is about foreign policy, not Jewish people.

“Judaism and the Jewish people are a light onto the world,” he said.

China said on Monday that a two-month extension of its trade truce with the United States would give both sides more time to assess the implementation of their existing arrangements and discuss further steps to resolve economic and trade disputes.

China’s Commerce Ministry confirmed that the truce would remain in place through January 10, saying the extension would provide a “relatively stable and predictable policy environment” for businesses and allow the two countries to continue their talks.

The extension was among the main outcomes of a summit between Chinese President Xi Jinping and US President Donald Trump in Washington last week, their second meeting this year.

Background

The United States and China have spent years imposing tariffs and other trade restrictions on each other, with tensions extending beyond tariffs to technology, investment, supply chains and market access.

The latest extension follows an agreement by the two sides to establish a trade council that will oversee discussions on a range of economic issues.

One of its first tasks will be to discuss reciprocal tariff reductions covering about $30 billion worth of goods, with the aim of maintaining more stable economic and trade relations between the two countries.

China’s Commerce Ministry said the arrangement would also create better conditions for Chinese exporters seeking access to the US market.

The two sides will hold regular discussions on investment opportunities and barriers, policy transparency and predictability, and concerns raised by businesses.

Why it matters

The extension gives US and Chinese companies more time to operate under a relatively predictable trade environment while negotiators work through remaining disputes.

Agriculture is one of the main areas covered by the latest arrangements. A White House list showed that China plans to reduce tariffs on a range of US agricultural products, including corn, wheat, dairy products and meat, although soybeans were not included.

The proposed cuts appear linked to a US-stated Chinese commitment to purchase $17 billion worth of agricultural products. China has already resumed large-scale purchases of US soybeans under an agreement reached last year that called for annual purchases of 25 million metric tons.

The countries will also establish an agriculture working group under the new trade council, with its first meeting expected before the end of the year.

Energy trade is another part of the agreement. China will import 10 million metric tons of US coal annually in 2027 and 2028, according to the White House. That would account for about 2% of China’s annual coal imports. US liquefied natural gas and oil were not included in the list.

The arrangements extend beyond traditional trade. The two countries have agreed to establish a communication channel for artificial intelligence related incidents and hold another dialogue by the end of November.

China will also consider approving foreign financial institutions, including US backed firms, to operate and open branches in the country. Washington and Beijing will meanwhile continue discussions on increasing direct flights between the two countries.

What’s next

The immediate focus will be on implementing the agreements reached at the presidential summit.

The agriculture working group is expected to meet before the end of the year, while the AI dialogue is due to continue by the end of November. The two countries will also use the new trade council to discuss tariffs, investment, market access and regulatory concerns.

The extension runs until January 10, giving negotiators another two months to evaluate whether the existing arrangements are being implemented and determine what further agreements can be reached.

Whether the two sides can turn the temporary truce into longer-term trade arrangements will depend on progress across the different areas covered by their negotiations, including tariffs, agricultural purchases, investment and technology.

With information from Reuters,