2026-09-04T16:32:00-0400 / 哥伦比亚广播公司新闻
作者
更新时间：2026年9月4日 / 美国东部时间下午6:44 / 哥伦比亚广播公司新闻
美国最高法院周五批准了共和党人的请求，叫停了下级法院禁止政党委员会获得更优惠广播电视广告费率的裁决，为共和党在11月选举前几周赢得一场关键胜利。
最高法院的这项命令恢复了联邦通信委员会的指导方针，允许各政党和委员会在中期选举前的竞选活动中使用更低的广告费率。这一裁决可能会对全国性共和党团体带来利好，这些团体的竞选资金储备已经超过民主党同行，能够在支持共和党候选人的宣传中投放更多广告。
根据共和党全国国会委员会和广告追踪机构AdImpact的数据，该委员会本月已为23个众议院选区的竞选预留了1080万美元的电视广告经费。
共和党全国国会委员会此举旨在扩大众议院中的共和党席位，此前最高法院在6月推翻了联邦对政治委员会与联邦候选人协调竞选的支出限额。
在一份未署名的裁决中，最高法院表示，上诉法院可能无权审理由一批众议院和参议院民主党候选人提起的、针对联邦通信委员会这项政策的诉讼。这些候选人包括佐治亚州参议员乔恩·奥索夫、密歇根州众议员克里斯汀·麦克唐纳·里维特、俄亥俄州参议员舍罗德·布朗以及北卡罗来纳州的罗伊·库珀。奥索夫和麦克唐纳·里维特正在寻求连任，布朗和库珀则分别在本州参选参议员。
最高法院还表示，第四巡回上诉法院的裁决可能会损害共和党各政党委员会的利益，因为广播公司已经根据下级法院的裁决取消了优惠费率。
“当前和未来的费率撤销将迫使各政党委员会支付更高的广告费用，从而阻碍它们在中期选举前的关键几周内向选民传递信息的努力，”最高法院在裁决中表示，“这种损害涉及它们以言论自由权自由开展政治活动和协调政治行动的权利，无法事后通过退款或报销得到补救。”
大法官凯坦吉·布朗·杰克逊投了反对票。
正在北卡罗来纳州参选参议员、对阵共和党人迈克尔·沃特利的库珀严厉批评了最高法院的裁决。
“最高法院刚刚无视法律的明确措辞，为亿万富翁和其他大额捐款者提供了巨额电视广告折扣，进一步削弱了普通民众的影响力，”库珀竞选北卡罗来纳州参议员阵营的经理杰夫·艾伦说道，“前共和党全国委员会主席迈克尔·沃特利将率先受益于共和党全国委员会1.3亿美元的竞选资金储备，以挽救他摇摇欲坠的竞选活动。”
这场争议涉及联邦选举前广播公司收取的政治广告费率。根据联邦法律，电视台必须在选举季向候选人及其竞选委员会提供优惠费率。这些更低的费率被称为“最低单位费率”，在大选前60天生效，对于即将到来的中期选举而言，生效时间为本周五。
今年3月，联邦通信委员会的一个部门发布了关于政治广告采购规则的公告，指示广播公司向与候选人协调开展竞选活动的联合筹款委员会和政治党派提供折扣费率。
这项指导方针发布后不久，这四位民主党候选人就要求联邦通信委员会重新审议这项政策。在联邦通信委员会未立即回应民主党人的请求后，他们转向美国第四巡回上诉法院，辩称这项政策非法。上月，第四巡回上诉法院以分歧裁决同意撤销该公告。
在这项2比1的裁决中，第四巡回上诉法院表示，联邦通信委员会的指导方针非法，因为政治党派和联合筹款委员会都无权享受折扣费率。多数派的两名法官表示，更优惠的费率仅适用于与其竞选活动相关的公职候选人。
持反对意见的哈维·威尔金森法官写道，第四巡回上诉法院介入得太早，因为联邦通信委员会尚未就民主党人的复审申请发布最终命令。
在向最高法院提出的紧急救济请求中，美国全国共和党参议员竞选委员会和共和党全国国会委员会表示，它们已经按优惠费率编制了“数千万美元”的广告预算。但它们表示，由于第四巡回上诉法院的裁决，广播电台正在取消这些费率。
它们辩称，第四巡回上诉法院并未审查联邦通信委员会的最终行动，而是仅仅审查了一份“工作人员级别的指导文件”，因此法院在这个阶段本不应介入。
“在选举季期间，一个存在分歧的第四巡回上诉法院小组刚刚改写了关于政治广告优惠广播费率的长期规则，”共和党人写道，并补充称民主党人正试图“颠覆现状”，将优惠广告费率的获取范围限制在候选人本人。
包括联邦通信委员会在内的特朗普政府支持共和党各委员会。在提交给最高法院的辩护状中，副检察长D.约翰·佐尔辩称，民主党候选人没有合法的起诉权，第四巡回上诉法院也无权审查该公告。
佐尔还主张，联邦通信委员会的指导方针对两党候选人一视同仁。
“该公告并未偏袒任何一方；相反，公告的解释对所有各方都提供了同样的好处，包括挑战者本人以及支持他们的委员会和政党，”他说道。
但民主党人的律师表示，第四巡回上诉法院的裁决“有充分依据”，因为联邦法律仅允许为“具备合法资格的公职候选人”提供更低的广告费率。
“这涵盖了候选人本人或其主要竞选委员会代表其购买的广告，但不包括政党委员会或联合筹款委员会在购买相关广告时……并非代表候选人开展的广告，”他们在提交给最高法院的文件中写道。
民主党人辩称，如果将低费率扩大到政治党派和联合筹款委员会，他们获得低费率的机会将被非法稀释。因此，这些候选人“将面临更多的反对广告，并且在争夺稀缺电视广告资源的竞争中处于劣势”。
“在每种情况下，这种非法稀释都要求他们筹集和花费更多资金来应对，”他们说道。
芬·丹尼尔·戈麦斯和扎克·胡达克对本文亦有贡献。
Supreme Court sides with Republicans in fight over broadcast ad rates
2026-09-04T16:32:00-0400 / CBS News
By
Updated on: September 4, 2026 / 6:44 PM EDT / CBS News
The Supreme Court on Friday granted Republicans’ request to halt a lower court decision that prevented political party committees from receiving more favorable broadcast advertising rates, giving the GOP a win weeks before the November elections.
The order from the high court restores guidance from the Federal Communications Commission that allows political parties and committees access to cheaper rates for political ads in the run-up to the midterms. The decision could be a boon for national Republican groups, which have amassed bigger war chests than their Democratic counterparts and can flood the airwaves with more ads in support of GOP candidates.
The National Republican Congressional Committee has reserved $10.8 million in television ads for 23 House races this month, according to the group and AdImpact.
The move by the NRCC, which aims to expand Republicans’ ranks in the House, comes after the Supreme Court in June struck down federal limits on the amount of money political committees can spend in coordination with federal candidates.
In an unsigned decision, the Supreme Court said the appeals court likely did not have jurisdiction to address the challenge to the FCC’s policy that was brought by a group of Democratic candidates for the House and Senate. Those candidates are Sen. Jon Ossoff of Georgia, Rep. Kristen McDonald Rivet of Michigan, Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Roy Cooper of North Carolina. Ossoff and McDonald Rivet are seeking reelection, and Brown and Cooper are both running for the Senate in their respective states.
The high court also said the GOP party committees are likely to be harmed by the 4th Circuit’s decision, since they said broadcasters are already withdrawing favorable rates in light of the lower court’s ruling.
“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 Supreme Court said. “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.”
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.
Cooper, who is running for Senate in North Carolina against Republican Michael Whatley, castigated the Supreme Court’s ruling,
“The Supreme Court has just ignored the clear language of the law and given a massive TV ad discount to billionaires and other big money donors, further eroding the power of everyday people,” said Jeff Allen, Cooper for North Carolina campaign manager. “Former RNC Chair Michael Whatley will be first in line to benefit from the RNC’s $130 million warchest to bail out his flailing campaign.”
The dispute involves the rates that broadcasters charge for political ads in the run-up to federal elections. Under federal law, stations must give candidates and their campaign committees favorable rates during election season. These lesser rates are known as the “lowest unit charge” rates and take effect 60 days before a general election, which for the upcoming midterms is Friday.
In March, a component of the Federal Communications Commission issued a public notice on the rules for political ad buys that directed broadcasters to offer discounted rates to joint fundraising committees and political parties spending in coordination with candidates.
Soon after that guidance was issued, the four Democratic candidates asked the FCC to review the policy. After the FCC took no immediate action on the Democrats’ request, they turned to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit and argued the policy is unlawful. In a divided decision last month, the 4th Circuit agreed to set aside the public notice.
In its 2-1 ruling, the 4th Circuit said that the FCC’s guidance is unlawful because neither political parties nor joint fundraising committees are entitled to the discounted rates. The two judges in the majority said that the more favorable rates are only for candidates for public office in connection with his campaign.
Writing in dissent, Judge Harvie Wilkinson said that the 4th Circuit got involved too soon, since the FCC has not yet issued a final order in response to the Democrats’ application for review.
In their request for emergency relief to the Supreme Court, the National Republican Senatorial Committee and NRCC said they have budgeted “tens of millions of dollars” in ad buys at the cheaper rates. But it said broadcast stations are rescinding those rates because of the 4th Circuit’s ruling.
They argued that the 4th Circuit did not review final action by the FCC, but rather a “staff-level guidance document,” so the court should not have gotten involved at that stage.
“In the midst of election season, a divided Fourth Circuit panel just rewrote longstanding rules about preferential broadcast rates for political ads,” the Republicans wrote, adding that the Democrats were seeking to “upend the status quo” by limiting access to favorable ad rates to candidates.
The Trump administration, including the FCC, backed the GOP committees. In a brief to the Supreme Court, Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued the Democratic candidates did not have the legal right to sue, and the 4th Circuit did not have jurisdiction to review the public notice.
Sauer also asserted that the FCC’s guidance applies equally to candidates of both political parties.
“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,” he said.
But lawyers for the Democrats said the 4th Circuit’s decision was “well-grounded,” since federal law allows cheaper ad rates only for a “legally qualified candidate” for public office.
“That covers advertisements purchased by the candidate or their principal campaign committee on their behalf, but not advertisements that are purchased by party committees or JFCs who are not … acting on behalf of candidates when purchasing the ads in question,” they wrote in a Supreme Court filing.
The Democrats argued that if the lower rates were extended to political parties and joint fundraising committees, their access to them would be unlawfully diluted. As a result, the candidates”would face a higher volume of opposing advertising, and in their competition with other advertisers for scarce television inventory.”
“In each case, the unlawful dilution requires them to raise and spend more money in response,” they said.
Fin Daniel Gómez and Zak Hudak contributed to this report.
REUTERS/Andrew Kelly/资料图片 获取授权许可，将在新标签页打开