2026年9月4日 美国东部时间下午4:06 / 美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）
作者：约翰·弗里茨
2026年6月8日摄于美国华盛顿特区的美国最高法院大楼。路透社/乔纳森·恩斯特
乔纳森·恩斯特/路透社
美国最高法院周五支持了共和党竞选团体的诉求，允许其为今年的中期选举购买打折电视广告，这是高等法院一系列有利于共和党的紧急裁决中的最新一例。
该裁决实质上维持了美国联邦通信委员会今年3月发布的指导方针，该方针允许参众两院共和党竞选机构支付此前仅面向候选人的较低广告费率。
最高法院的这项裁决将主要使共和党受益，因为共和党通常通过政党委员会筹集的资金多于民主党。
在自由派大法官凯坦吉·布朗·杰克逊的异议声中，最高法院表示，针对该指导方针的诉讼尚不成熟。共和党团体曾指出，广播公司正依据下级法院驳回该指导方针的裁决，取消低价广告费率。
“当前和未来的费率上调将迫使政党委员会为广告位支付更高费用，从而阻碍它们在中期选举前的关键几周接触选民的努力，”最高法院在一份未具名的意见书中写道，“这种损害涉及它们言论自由以及自由协调政治活动的第一修正案权利，无法通过事后退款或报销来补救。”
根据联邦法律，候选人在选举临近期间有权享受大幅折扣的广告费率。今年联邦通信委员会的指导方针将这一福利扩大到其他竞选实体，例如代表全国候选人投放电视广告的全国共和党参议院委员会。两党长期以来都在利用这类团体。
共和党团体在向最高法院提起的紧急上诉中表示，他们已根据联邦通信委员会的指导方针编制了“数千万美元”的广告预算。美国第四巡回上诉法院以4比3的分歧裁决称，法律明确将低费率福利仅限定于候选人。根据法庭文件，这些低费率原定于周五生效。
急于保住共和党对国会控制权的特朗普政府，在最高法院诉讼中支持了共和党团体。美国司法部辩称，联邦通信委员会的指导方针不会对提起诉讼的民主党候选人造成损害，因为该规则是普遍适用的。
共有四名民主党候选人就联邦通信委员会的裁决提起诉讼：密歇根州联邦众议员克里斯汀·麦克唐纳·里维特、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。
此次广告费率案与最高法院今年夏天裁决的另一案件密切相关。在那起案件中，最高法院以6票支持、3票反对的保守派多数裁决，废除了对政党与联邦候选人协调支出额度的长期限制。自20世纪70年代以来，政党委员会与竞选活动协调的支出金额一直设有上限。最高法院裁定，这些上限违反了第一修正案。
Supreme Court backs Republican request to lower TV ad rates
September 4, 2026 4:06 PM ET / CNN
By John Fritze
A view of the U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C., U.S., June 8, 2026. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst
Jonathan Ernst/Reuters
The Supreme Court on Friday endorsed a request from Republican campaign groups that want to buy discounted TV advertising for this year’s midterms, the latest in a series of emergency rulings from the high court benefiting the GOP.
The decision effectively upholds guidance issued by the Federal Communications Commission in March that allowed the campaign arms of House and Senate Republicans to pay lower ad rates that were previously reserved only for candidates.
The court’s order will primarily benefit Republicans, who generally raise more money through party committees than Democrats.
Over the dissent of liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the court said that the challenge to the guidance was premature. The GOP groups had said that broadcasters were rescinding the cheaper ad rates based on a lower court’s decision blocking the guidance.
“Current and future recissions will require the party committees to pay more for advertising space, thereby hampering their efforts to reach the electorate in the critical weeks leading up to the midterms,” the court wrote in an unsigned opinion. “That injury, which implicates their First Amendment rights to speak and coordinate their political activities freely, cannot be remedied after the fact through refunds or reimbursements.”
Under federal law, candidates are entitled to deeply discounted ad rates in the run up to an election. Guidance this year from the FCC extended that benefit to other campaign entities, like the National Republican Senatorial Committee, that run TV ads on behalf of candidates across the country. Both Republicans and Democrats have long made use of those groups.
The Republican groups told the Supreme Court in their emergency appeal that they had already budgeted “tens of millions of dollars” in advertising based on the FCC guidance. A divided 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the law clearly limited the lower rate benefit only to candidates. Those lower rates, according to court documents, are set to take effect on Friday.
The Trump administration, eager to keep Republican control of Congress, supported the GOP groups at the Supreme Court. The Justice Department argued that the FCC guidance wouldn’t harm the Democratic candidates who sued because the rule is applied universally.
Four Democratic candidates sued over the FCC’s decision: Rep. Kristen McDonald Rivet 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 ad rates case is closely tied to another the Supreme Court decided this summer. In that case, the court’s 6-3 conservative majority 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 could spend in coordination with a campaign. The court ruled that those caps violated the First Amendment.
发表回复