2026年8月31日 上午11:20 美东时间 / 美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）
作者：约翰·弗里茨
40分钟前发布
发布于2026年8月31日，上午11:20 美东时间
得到特朗普政府支持的共和党竞选团体周一向美国最高法院提出请求，允许它们以折扣价购买电视广告位，这起紧急上诉案件将再次交由美国最高法院审理，可能会影响今年中期选举的结果。
此次快速推进的上诉，此前经历了6名保守派大法官占优的最高法院作出的一系列广受关注的裁决，这些裁决大多对共和党有利。另一桩涉及唐纳德·特朗普总统有争议的邮寄选票行政令的案件，预计也将在未来几天再次提交给大法官们。
这起最新案件涉及电视广告投放——这通常是国会竞选活动中成本最高的环节。候选人可受益于一项联邦法律，该法律要求广播公司向他们收取大幅折扣后的广告费用。今年早些时候，美国联邦通信委员会（FCC）表示，政治党派及其他实体也有权享受较低的广告费率。
联邦通信委员会的这项决定被广泛认为对共和党有利，共和党通常通过政党委员会筹集更多资金。相比之下，民主党通常更多地通过其候选人个人直接筹款。
参众两院共和党委员会周一在向最高法院提交的文件中表示，他们“已根据这些规则为广告投放预算了数千万美元”。但由于上诉法院的裁决，“广播电台已经取消了这些优惠费率”。
共和党委员会在诉状中辩称，联邦法院无权审理此案，因为联邦通信委员会的“解释性指导意见”“既不属于行政行为，也不具有终局性”。
他们已请求法院在周五前作出裁决。
急于维持共和党对国会控制权的特朗普政府，在上诉提交后不久就提交了支持共和党团体的意见书。美国司法部辩称，联邦通信委员会的指导意见并未损害提起诉讼的民主党候选人，因为该规则对所有候选人和团体一视同仁。
“该通知并未偏向任何一方；相反，通知的解释为所有各方提供了同等福利，包括挑战者本身以及支持他们的委员会和政党，”美国政府首席上诉律师、副检察长D.约翰·佐伊尔向最高法院表示。
美国第四巡回上诉法院一个意见分歧的三人法官小组上周裁定，联邦法律规定的低费率仅适用于候选人本人。
“‘候选人’一词的含义就是‘候选人’，”由比尔·克林顿总统任命的美国巡回法官罗伯特·金写道。
由罗纳德·里根总统任命的资深保守派法官J.哈维·威尔金森三世对此持反对意见。他认为，候选人和政党之间的合作在美国有着悠久传统，并将第四巡回法院的裁决描述为对这一传统的“攻击”。
“国会不能为某些候选人的言论提供低价优惠，以此作为惩罚其他候选人言论的手段，”他写道。
四名民主党候选人就联邦通信委员会的决定提起诉讼：密歇根州联邦众议员克里斯汀·麦克唐纳、俄亥俄州前参议员谢罗德·布朗、佐治亚州参议员乔恩·奥索夫，以及北卡罗来纳州前州长罗伊·库珀。参众两院共和党竞选机构介入为联邦通信委员会的决定辩护。
最高法院在6月底废除了长期存在的政治党派与联邦候选人协调筹款额度的限制。自20世纪70年代以来，政治党派委员会在与竞选活动协调方面的支出曾设有上限。这导致大量竞选资金流向超级政治行动委员会（超级PAC），这类机构没有支出上限，但无法就其想要协助的候选人提前规划广告和其他宣传内容。
最高法院以6票支持、3票反对的党派意识形态分歧裁决，这些筹款上限违反了第一修正案。这一裁决主要因广告费率问题成为共和党人的胜利。
最高法院预计将在未来几周内就这起紧急上诉作出裁决。
Republicans ask Supreme Court to let them air TV ads for less
2026-08-31 11:20 AM ET / CNN
By John Fritze
40 min ago
PUBLISHED Aug 31, 2026, 11:20 AM ET
The US Supreme Court is pictured during sunset on August 7.
Nathan Howard/Reuters
Republican campaign groups – supported by the Trump administration – asked the Supreme Court on Monday to let them purchase television advertising at discounted rates, handing the nation’s highest court another emergency appeal that could influence the outcome of this year’s midterm elections.
The quick-turn appeal follows a series of high-profile decisions from the 6-3 conservative court that have largely benefited Republicans. A separate case dealing with President Donald Trump’s controversial executive order on mail ballots is also expected to rocket back to the justices in the coming days.
The latest case involves television advertising, often the most expensive part of a congressional campaign. Candidates benefit from a federal law that requires broadcasters to charge them deeply discounted ad rates. Earlier this year, the Federal Communications Commission said that political parties and other entities are also entitled to the lower rates.
The FCC decision was widely seen as benefiting the Republican Party, which generally tends to raise more money through the party committees. Democrats, by contrast, generally raise more money directly through their candidates.
The House and Senate Republican party committees told the Supreme Court on Monday that they had “budgeted tens of millions of dollars in ad buys under these rules.” But, because of the appeals court decision, “broadcast stations are already rescinding those rates.”
The Republican committees argued in their filing that federal courts lack jurisdiction to decide the case because the FCC’s “interpretive guidance” was “neither agency action, nor final.”
They have asked the court to act by Friday.
The Trump administration, which is eager to keep Republican control of Congress, submitted a brief shortly after the appeal was filed supporting the GOP groups. The Justice Department argued that the FCC guidance doesn’t harm the Democratic candidates who sued because the rule is applied universally to all candidates and groups.
“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,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer, the administration’s top appellate attorney, told the Supreme Court.
A divided three-judge panel of the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last week that federal law provides the lower rate only for candidates.
“The term ‘candidate’ means ‘candidate,’” wrote US Circuit Judge Robert King, who was appointed to the bench by President Bill Clinton.
US Circuit Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, a long-serving conservative appointed by President Ronald Reagan, dissented. He argued that collaboration between candidates and parties has a rich tradition in the United States and described the 4th Circuit’s decision as an “assault” on that tradition.
“Congress cannot dangle lower rates for some candidate speech as a means of penalizing other candidate speech,” he wrote.
Four Democratic candidates sued over the FCC’s decision: Rep. Kristen McDonald of Michigan, former Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Sen. Jon Ossoff of Georgia, and former Gov. Roy Cooper of North Carolina. The campaign arm for House and Senate Republicans intervened to defend the FCC’s decision.
The Supreme Court in late June rolled back longstanding limits on how much political parties may coordinate with federal candidates. Since the 1970s, political party committees were capped at how much money they may spend in coordination with a campaign. That pushed a flood of campaign money toward super PACs, which have no spending limits, but are unable to run their advertising and other messages past candidates they want to help.
In a 6-3 decision decided along ideological lines, the court ruled that those caps violated the First Amendment. That decision was a victory for Republicans principally because of the ad rate issue.
The Supreme Court is likely to act on the emergency appeal in coming weeks.
发表回复