Finance
Will SCOTUS campaign finance ruling yield big changes for parties? — Harvard Gazette
Fifty years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down campaign spending limits in the landmark decision Buckley v. Valeo, finding the curbs violated First Amendment free-speech protections. Since then, several rulings, including the 2010 Citizens United case, which ended restrictions on election donations by corporations, nonprofits, and labor unions, have further loosened campaign finance regulations.
In this interview, which has been edited and condensed for length and clarity, Nicholas Stephanopoulos, Kirkland & Ellis Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, spoke about the recent ruling by the Supreme Court that lifted restrictions on how much money political parties can spend in coordination with candidates, its downside and potential upside, and its possible impact on the midterm elections.
Can you explain what the recent campaign finance ruling means? How is it going to affect political parties?
The recent decision is a not a huge blockbuster like some other campaign finance cases we’ve seen in recent years. That’s because the decision only involves limits on political parties’ coordinated expenditures with candidates, and that pool of money, both today and potentially in the future, is not enormous.
Before this ruling, parties could spend whatever they want, even before they could coordinate a lot of expenditures with candidates. Now they can just coordinate somewhat more. So, the stakes here were sort of moderate.
The two things the decision means above all are these: On the negative side, it’ll be easier now for a corrupt donor [to skirt individual donation limits] to funnel more money to a candidate using a party as the conduit or the vehicle for that contribution. On the positive side, parties are permanent, important political institutions, and now somewhat more money might flow to parties instead of super PACs and dark money groups and other more problematic organizations.
Nicholas Stephanopoulos.
Harvard Law School
Justice Elena Kagan, who dissented from this ruling, said this decision would increase the likelihood of “political corruption.” Do you agree?
First of all, notice that Kagan isn’t challenging the fundamentals of campaign finance law. She’s not claiming that money isn’t speech. She’s not claiming that all campaign finance regulations should be upheld. She’s fully arguing within the current court’s doctrinal framework. She thinks that the law at issue is necessary to prevent corruption.
Kagan points out that, with a little bit of bookkeeping, it should be fairly straightforward now for a donor to give effectively half a million dollars to a candidate channeled through a party, as opposed to the $7,000 the donor is allowed to give directly to the candidate.
With much bigger sums that can now be given through a party to a candidate, there’s the possibility of more quid pro quo corruption. A candidate isn’t likely to do very much in return for $7,000 but a candidate may do quite a bit more in return for $500,000. So I think we’ll see somewhat more corruption in politics as a result of today’s decision.
What’s the idea behind “money is speech,” which has been at the core of most campaign finance decisions since the 1970s?
The premise that money is speech, or at least it enables political speech, means that it can be covered by the First Amendment. That premise underlies all campaign finance doctrine since the 1970s.
It’s a controversial doctrine. Individual justices over the years have pointed out that money is not speech, and merely enabling speech is not the same thing as being speech itself. All campaign finance decisions since the 1970s have assumed that regulations of political funding involved the First Amendment because there’s a close enough connection to political speech, and even the progressive justices in the 1990s and 2000s still accepted that the First Amendment was involved here.
The implication of fully endorsing the position that money isn’t speech is that all of these cases would quickly fall by the wayside. If money isn’t speech and there’s no First Amendment issue presented here, then Congress can regulate campaign finance however Congress wants to, without any possible First Amendment problem. But that view has never been the view of the majority of the court.
Can you compare the impact of this recent ruling to that of the 2010 Citizens United case?
Citizens United involved independent spending by corporations, by unions, and the court said that there’s no valid justification for limiting any independent campaign spending, whether it’s by candidates, rich individuals, parties, corporations, or unions.
The current case involves the somewhat less-explosive issue of coordinated expenditures. Citizens United was a sweeping decision, striking down a very important federal law and opening the door to huge new sums to be spent in politics. This decision isn’t like that. It doesn’t involve independent spending. It only involves one actor, political parties, not the whole range of actors. The stakes are a lot lower than the Citizens United case.
With this ruling, the Supreme Court overruled a 2001 decision, which upheld the same limits on coordinate expenditures with candidates. How do you explain that?
The 2001 case was decided by the court when it was at its most pro-regulatory in the campaign finance context. What changed since 2001 is the composition of the court.
The critical change was when Sandra Day O’Connor retired in 2006, and Sam Alito replaced her. Alito has always been a skeptic of campaign finance regulations, whereas O’Connor, especially toward the end of her time on the court, was willing to uphold a lot of campaign finance regulations.
Almost everything that’s followed since then, Citizens United in 2010, McCutcheon in 2014, and other decisions striking down campaign finance laws, happened not because the world of politics changed or because there was some big insight on the court. It happened because the court became more conservative and what had been a five-four pro-regulation majority became a five-four anti-regulation majority.
It’s no surprise that the current court, which is now six-three against campaign finance regulation, doesn’t like a decision from this earlier period.
Will this ruling impact the midterm elections?
In the near term, this will somewhat benefit the Republican Party committees that have more funds at their disposal because they have just happened to raise a lot more money recently than the Democratic Party entities.
However, even before this decision, all of those Republican entities could still spend their money however they wanted to, so it’s not that big of a change for them. I think Democrats will direct more of their donors to give some more money to party organizations. There might be a short-term benefit for Republicans, but I don’t think this will cause a great imbalance in the system going forward.
Overall, I’m not incredibly alarmed by this ruling. We’re still going to have in place various other laws and precautions that will stop some corruption.
It’s bad for our system to allow super PACs and dark-money groups to become the leading actors in campaign finance. I’d rather have the money in parties’ hands than in super PACs or dark-money groups’ hands. I don’t think the doors are really open for that much additional corruption here. I think there’s a non-trivial silver lining in strengthening political parties, which are valuable institutions.
Finance
Unexpected expenses and revenues affect Dillon budget as town looks to increase financial transparency
Dillon’s acting town manager suggested town staff review its 2026 budget to adjust beginning fund balances, revenues, expenditures and transfers in preparation for the 2027 budget season.
The town hired a former finance director, Carri McDonnell, as a consultant to assist the interim finance director with the project. McDonnell presented suggestions for amendments and supplemental appropriations at a July 21 work session, and the Dillon Town Council approved them Aug. 4. She said the project aimed to ensure transparency and accuracy and build trust and confidence in the reporting of town financials.
“That’s what I think we’re doing tonight,” McDonnell said in July.
McDonnell said she brought updated 2025 numbers from last year’s audit into the 2026 budget before working with staff to update 2026 revenue and expenditure projections. She reviewed each of the town’s funds, starting with the general fund, which she said was not balanced in the original 2026 budget and did not see improvement in the review.
“It is really not balanced today,” McDonnell said. “It’s in much worse shape after going through the (2025) actuals, and looking at how the budget numbers were derived for (2026), we’ve had to make some significant changes.”
Some additional costs, McDonnell said, came from leadership changes, as Dillon lost its finance director and let go of its town manager this year. The town hired McDonnell to supplement its finance department and, at its Aug. 4 work session, selected a company to lead its search for a new town manager.
General fund revenues are now projected to be about $200,000 less than originally anticipated, McDonnell said, while expenses are expected to increase by about $230,000. She said those were “not big numbers” compared to the audit showing an increase in the general fund starting balance of $1.6 million for 2026.
“We don’t have revenues covering expenses, but we have cash,” McDonnell said. “That’s good news.”
While revenues fail to cover expenditures by almost $530,000, she said many of those issues should not reappear in the 2027 budget. She recommended using the 2026 starting fund balance to cover that difference, although she emphasized that the town cannot do that every year or it will deplete the general fund’s reserves.
“We’re lucky we counted our chips wrong and we have more chips,” Mayor Joshua Samuel said. “But only this time.”
McDonnell’s review anticipates the 2026 general fund ending balance will be about $870,000 higher than originally expected, sitting at about $5.4 million.
She suggested the excess revenues from the marina, which are included in the general fund, be transferred to the capital fund. On Aug. 4, the council discussed the idea and elected to make the transfer this year and reevaluate next year if it should continue regularly. That excess will be about $143,000 this year, but McDonnell said it is often more in years with better marina water levels.
The capital fund saw decreases in its 2026 starting balance and revenue projection and an increase in expenditure projections. McDonnell highlighted several projects that she moved from the Dillon Urban Renewal Authority to the capital fund because of a lack of funds in the authority’s revised budget.
To “help the general fund,” McDonnell moved $200,000 of sales tax from the capital fund into the general fund.
“It may have to be more,” McDonnell said. “You’ll see that the capital fund can afford it, in order to help balance, but we’ll see.”
Overall, the review decreased the expected ending capital fund balance by about $600,000, putting it at $2.3 million. McDonnell said the fund is in “really good shape.”
McDonnell described the general fund and the water fund as “tough ones,” though she said neither are “insurmountable.” The water fund’s starting balance decreased by about $660,000, while its projected revenues decreased and projected expenditures increased. The projected ending balance decreased by over $1 million, and revenues will not cover expenses by about $300,000, according to McDonnell’s staff memo.
Decreased water usage brought on by drought conditions in Colorado has benefitted the town in terms of water conservation but hurt its water fund revenues, McDonnell said. She told the Town Council on Aug. 4 that the town may need to loan sewer fund money to the water fund to balance it.
The Water Plant Improvement Fund saw increases in starting balance and revenue and a decrease in expenditures, adding up to an increase of about $1.5 million in its projected 2026 ending balance. Combined, the two water funds’ projected ending balance is nearly $9 million, but McDonnell said only around $200,000 is cash, or spendable funds, while the rest are nonspendable assets like the water system.
The sewer and sewer plant improvement funds saw little change in their ending balance projections. Other funds, including the Housing 5A Fund, Streets Fund, Parking Fund, Conservation Trust Fund and Cemetery Perpetual Care Fund, also saw little change in their ending fund balances.
McDonnell said she and the interim finance director will continue working with department heads to keep revenue and expenditure projects as accurate as possible.
Finance
Finance, Defense Ministries to propose NIS 1 billion for defense procurement | The Jerusalem Post
The Finance Ministry and Defense Ministry are set to submit a resolution for the transfer of an additional NIS 1 billion to the Defense Ministry for government approval on Sunday, N12 reported.
The resolution calls for the procedure “in light of the state of emergency in which the State of Israel finds itself; given the urgent and immediate need to provide an operational response and for the need for classified procurement.”
The majority of the amount, NIS 850 million, will be taken from a budget designated for investments in the technology sector in 2026 as part of the Ministry of Economy and Industry’s budget for promoting investments and encouraging employment, according to the report.
The rest, NIS 150 million, will come from budgets reserved in previous government decisions but not yet allocated this year.
According to the legal opinion attached to the proposal, without approval of the budget source, it will not be possible to implement the transfer.
While the irregularity of the move being brought forward in an election period is acknowledged in the opinion, it adds that due to the urgency and security imperative, there is no legal impediment to approving it.
Ondo Finance is marking a milestone for one of its earliest products, as its tokenized Treasury note, USDY, turns three with a market cap of $2.1 billion.
USDY, short for U.S. Dollar Yield Token, is a token backed by short-term U.S. Treasuries and bank deposits. According to Ondo, it now ranks among the top three tokenized Treasuries.
Tokenized Treasuries are blockchain-based versions of government debt that let holders earn yield onchain rather than through a traditional brokerage.
Ondo Finance is a company that builds tools to bring institutional-grade financial products onto public blockchains. It says USDY was one of the first signals that tokenization could reshape how financial products are issued, accessed, and used.
Related: Ondo leads tokenized stocks market as Wall Street moves onchain
3 years of growth across 6 chains
USDY tracks the value of the U.S. dollar, but its price typically sits slightly above $1 because the yield each unit earns is added back into the token, lifting its value over time.
The reserves behind it are held in Treasury bills and bank demand deposits, both considered cash equivalents. Ondo says the token supports permissionless transfers and round-the-clock minting and redemption.
Trending on TheStreet Roundtable:
Since launching in August 2023, USDY has expanded to run across six blockchains and now counts nearly 30,000 holders, according to Ondo.
The company says the token has seen $8.5 billion in transfer volume over the last three years.
The milestone reflects a broader push to move real-world assets onchain, a market where Ondo has positioned itself around institutional standards.
By keeping the token compliant while preserving the flexibility of blockchain-based transfers, Ondo is betting that tokenized Treasuries can serve both traditional finance and crypto users at once.
Related: Exclusive: Peter Schiff says the Fed ‘never should have stopped hiking’
This story was originally published by TheStreet on Aug 8, 2026, where it first appeared in the Innovation section. Add TheStreet as a Preferred Source by clicking here.
-
Denver, CO3 minutes agoDenver police say driver intentionally struck motorcyclist in fatal crash
-
Seattle, WA9 minutes agoSubs help Angel City FC earn tie with Reign in Seattle
-
San Diego, CA15 minutes agoFire displaces 21 residents from La Jolla memory care facility
-
Milwaukee, WI21 minutes agoSeries Preview: Milwaukee Brewers @ San Diego Padres
-
Atlanta, GA27 minutes agoBraves at Yankees series recap: Atlanta salvages an intense series in the Bronx
-
Minneapolis, MN33 minutes agoHundreds of scooter riders travel through downtown Minneapolis, go onto interstate
-
Indianapolis, IN39 minutes agoColts provide positive injury updates on two starters
-
Pittsburg, PA45 minutes agoDay Trip: A View From Above | Pittsburgh Magazine
